boyle-cdc-autism

It is as I had feared. I must do one more post on a story that I’ve been blogging about for one solid week now. Hopefully after this, I will be able to move on to other topics last week, but after spending this whole week writing just about this, I figured, “What the heck? It’s Friday. Might as well make it a solid week and move on next week. I hope.” What am I referring to? Those familiar with the story, as in past installments, can skip the recap (but shouldn’t). I feel obligated to include one because of all the new readers who have appeared for these peerless bits of, in this case, not-so-Respectful Insolence.

This whole story about a “CDC whistleblower,” who, or so the rabid antivaccine contingent hoped, would “blow the lid” off of a massive CDC conspiracy to hide The Truth and bring their conspiracy theory to the mainstream press, is still limping along, even in light of the rather mealy-mouthed and disingenuous statement by the CDC whistleblower himself. This Revelation of The Truth would then build in the mainstream press to the point of leading to investigations of the CDC and the discovery of what they’ve hoped for passionately ever since they became antivaccinationists: Actual scientific evidence that vaccines, or the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal that used to be in most childhood vaccines, cause autism and all sorts of health problems. In this case, they thought that they had found slam-dunk evidence that the CDC had manipulated data to hide an “association” between the MMR vaccine and autism in African American males. At first, in a video by antivaccine hero Andrew Wakefield featuring the antivaccine biochemical engineer turned epidemiologist wannabe, this “whistleblower” was not identified, but then, a week ago, a new video identified him as William W. Thompson, PhD, a psychologist and senior scientist at the CDC, who, apparently, over a ten month period, helped Hooker produce his utterly incompetent “reanalysis” of a ten year old CDC study that had failed to find a difference in age of first MMR vaccination in children with autism compared with neurotypical controls. So incompetent was the analysis that I couldn’t resist titling my post a week ago about it, Brian Hooker proves Andrew Wakefield wrong about vaccines and autism, because that’s basically what he did.

When the expected media storm did not materialize, antivaccine activists lost their collective minds, ineffectively trying the “drip, drip, drip” revelation technique. Even now they are still relentlessly Tweeting the same discredited talking points over and over and over again under the hashtag #CDCwhistleblower, although the Twitter storm appears to be abating as I write this. Unfortunately, in light of Dr. Thompson’s two-edged statement, in which he insinuated that his co-authors on the Destefano et al paper (the ten year old study) had committed scientific misconduct, or, at the very least, very sloppy, ideologically motivated science, while at the same time attacking Brian Hooker for recording his conversations without his permission, which, if true, makes Hooker an utter slimeball in my book, and Andrew Wakefield for revealing his identity without his permission.

It’s all a convoluted mess that basically blew up in Hooker’s face. Hooker played Thompson, gaining his confidence and recording him in the process, while bragging to the faithful that he had an “inside man” who would blow the lid off the CDC. Wakefield played Hooker. We have no way of knowing how Wakefield found out about Hooker and Thompson, but, given Wakefield’s previous behavior, it’s not too far beyond the pale to speculate that Wakefield applied pressure to Hooker to do that video. Then Wakefield betrayed Hooker. Because Wakefield’s reputation is so toxic, he basically destroyed any chance of mainstream media attention to the story, relegating it to the fevered conspiracy swamp of “media” like NaturalNews.com, the antivaccine crank blog Age of Autism, and a variety of lesser, but no less loony, outfits.

All of this brings us to the question: What now? The story has blown up in Hooker and Wakefield’s faces. It very much reminds me of this:

In this case, I think it’s helpful to go back to the past and then back to the future, so to speak. There have been a couple of odds and ends that I’ve wanted to incorporate into previous posts, but somehow didn’t, and now seems as good a time as any to address them. From the past, let’s look first at Brian Hooker being interviewed at this year’s AutismOne quackfest in May:

For people not long familiar with Hooker and his activities, this is an excellent introduction to the origins of this manufactroversy from the antivaccine point of view. Hooker explains how he used Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to get the CDC dataset. Now here’s where it’s interesting. He says that he used the CDC’s own methods and confirmed its results. Then he claims he realized that the CDC used “very devious, duplicitous statistical methods,” which made me chuckle out loud, given that Hooker used very incompetent statistical methods in his reanalysis. Hilariously, he claims that he analyzed the data correctly, which is utter tripe. As I described, he analyzed data set up to be analyzed as case-control as a cohort study and, as many of you pointed out, used inappropriate statistical tests, all to torture the data until they confessed a relationship between MMR vaccine and autism. However he could only find such a relationship in African American males. As I also described, this relationship was based on very tiny numbers and almost certainly spurious. Basically, Hooker tells the same lies about the study that have been debunked. I wish I had seen this before I saw Hooker’s paper last week.

Hilariously, Hooker laments that most journals don’t want to touch this stuff because it’s so controversial. In retrospect, we know that it’s more likely that the reason journals don’t want to touch papers such as those by Hooker is because, scientifically, they are utter and complete crap. At least he admits that there is such a thing as autism in the unvaccinated. There’s also the usual hodge-podge of “environmental causation” discussed, such as heavy metals, and, of course, GMOs. We do learn, however, that Hooker doesn’t trust the NIH to do a good vaccinated/unvaccinated study, even though one is going on. Of course, what he doesn’t like is that, from every indication we get from other studies, such a study would likely be negative; so instead he weaves conspiracy theories about how the NIH “suppresses” results that support his views and trumpets how he’s going to do a vaccinated/unvaccinated study using a Florida Medicaid database. Of course, given his utter statistical and epidemiological incompetence, there’s no way he could ever properly control for all the potential confounders in such data; so it’s virtually a given that he will be producing another “positive” study. Maybe he’ll get Jake Crosby to do the statistics. I am, however, touched at how much faith Hooker places in “large numbers” as arbiters of the truth in epidemiology. Apparently, he doesn’t realize that analyzing large numbers incorrectly will produce results just as wrong as analyzing smaller datasets.

Next up, hot off the YouTube presses, so to speak, the crank NextNewsNetwork has featured Andrew Wakefield:

I nearly spewed my coffee all over my laptop when the “reporter” described Andrew Wakefield an “international leader” on vaccinations. It’s one of the rare times when words fail me. My dear readers, the things I do for you. Watching the unctuous, arrogant, and smarmy Wakefield for 13 solid minutes induces in me the overwhelming desire to retch and vomit, but I did it anyway, all for you. Notice that, even in light of Dr. Thompson’s statement, the antivaccine talking point remains unchanged: That Dr. Thompson, as the CDC whistleblower, has admitted that the CDC intentionally removed data from Destefano et al in order to hide a relationship between MMR vaccination and autism in African American males. This is not what Dr. Thompson said in his statement. Rather, he insinuated less than scientifically rigorous decision-making at best and scientific misconduct at worst, all trying to temper the insinuation by couching it as “reasonable scientists” disagreeing about interpretation of data. In other words, his statement is far less inflammatory than it is being portrayed. Even Wakefield, cherry picking statements from Hooker’s recordings of Thompson, couldn’t make a case that Thompson had said this.

There’s more race-baiting, in which Wakefield claims that these African American boys were “neglected.” He also claims that this is vindication for him, but, of course, it is not. Notice how he completely neglects to mention that in every other subgroup, even Hooker couldn’t torture the data to make it confess a relationship between age at MMR vaccination and autism in any other population other than a very small population in the study: African-American males. Whenever that happens as you slice epidemiological data finer and finer, you should be alert for the very distinct possibility that what you’re really looking at is a spurious correlation. As I pointed out before, Hooker in reality merely confirmed that Wakefield was wrong about everyone except African-American males, and, given how small this subgroup was in the study, almost certainly didn’t find any evidence supporting Wakefield’s hypothesis (such as it is) for even African-American boys. Yet, Wakefield, as deluded as he is, spins it as “vindication.” He even thanks Hooker for getting a “senior scientist at the CDC” to come forward and “confirm” that some of those “ideas we put forward” are true. Holy hell! Even if you spin Thompson’s statements in the most unflattering manner possible towards the CDC and his co-investigators, Thompson said nothing of the sort!

Hilariously, the interviewer actually asks one pretty good question: Whether Wakefield had ever observed a greater effect of MMR causing autism in black male babies. Naturally, he took the opportunity to spin these results as an excuse to mention his dubious statements about Somali immigrants in Minnesota. Then, while implicitly acknowledging that Hooker’s reanalysis didn’t confirm his belief for white children (I refuse to call it a hypothesis any more) that MMR causes autism, proposes a much larger study to determine if MMR causes autism in non-African American children. No matter what the data show, to Wakefield MMR causes autism. Particularly despicable, however, is Wakefield’s repeated assertion that, because of the CDC “fraud,” for 13 years children have gone “untreated and uncared for.” Translation: Mainstream medicine haven’t embraced my biomedical quackery to treat autism as “vaccine injury” because it doesn’t accept that vaccines cause autism.

In any case, the rest of the interview is the same talking points we’ve heard ad nauseam from Wakefield. He does, however, get one more good question. Near the end of the interview, the interviewer makes the observation that one of the arguments against vaccines causing autism is that correlation does not equal causation and then asks him if there’s been a correlation between low vaccine uptake and spikes in vaccine-preventable diseases in unvaccinated children. (I know! Shocking! Actually another pretty good question that I bet Wakefield didn’t see coming! The answer is yes, by the way.) Wakefield completely ignores that part of the question and tries to convince the interviewer that correlation of autism diagnoses with vaccination is “not a coincidence,” something he repeats multiple times. He doesn’t answer at all about spikes in infectious disease in unvaccinated children, but rather finishes with a flourish of “too many too soon” and the “toxins gambit,” while calling for prosecution of CDC officials.

So at the end of all this, I’m still left wondering: WTF happened with Dr. Thompson? I’m beginning to wonder more and more if he has started down that slippery slope to becoming antivaccine. His public statement makes me wonder, and so does this snippet of conversation surreptitiously recorded by Brian Hooker, in which he states unequivocally that he thinks that thimerosal-containing vaccines given to pregnant women will result in tics in the infant and that there is “biological plausibility” that thimerosal causes “autism-like” features. Of course, his very own study, published in the NEJM in 2007, does not show that, nor do any other reputable studies. True, his followup paper found what was described as a “small, but statistically significant association between early thimerosal exposure and the presence of tics in boys,” but also cautioned that this “finding should be interpreted with caution due to limitations in the measurement of tics and the limited biological plausibility regarding a causal relationship.” There were also significant limitations in the study, for instance:

This study was also limited by the relatively crude measurement of tics. All the other outcome measures assessed in this study used reliable and valid measures that have published manuals, which allowed the researchers to provide feedback to parents of the child. Furthermore, all testers underwent a 2-day training session and required them to reach a specific level of reliability in terms of administering the tests appropriately as documented in the published assessment manuals. The tics assessments, however, carried out by the testers did not require them to meet any reliability criteria and the testers had no prior training in neurology or tic assessments. The only training the testers received for tic assessments was based on viewing a 30-min training video (“Tourette Syndrome: A Guide to Diagnosis of TS,” 1989).

Now, two years later, Thompson has gone from a tentative finding of a slight increase in tics in boys to saying that because tics are more common in autistic children, that there’s biological plausibility to the hypothesis that thimerosal causes “autism-like” features in children when given in vaccines to their mothers during pregnancy? WTF? It’s really hard not to conclude from his statements regarding tics and thimerosal that Dr. Thompson has not gone at least partially antivaccine, which, if true, may explain much.

I conclude as I began, by asking “What now?” It’s obvious that the antivaccine contingent will flog this story for all it’s worth as long as they can, but fortunately the mainstream press doesn’t appear to be getting the message. It’s also clear that Hooker will continue to crank out incompetently performed epidemiological papers that torture the data until they confess a relationship between vaccines and autism. After this kerfuffle, however, he will be even more unlikely to find an epidemiologist or statistician to team up with him, other than perhaps Jake Crosby, who still hasn’t finished school yet. I only wonder whether Thompson will go full antivax now that he’s been outed, perhaps further assisting incorrectly identified “unbiased scientists” like Hooker, or whether he’ll just put his head down and try to ride the storm out, hopefully perhaps to do good work again someday. I don’t know. I do know that Thompson has done horrific harm, but, thankfully, because of Wakefield, that harm is much less than it would have been if Thompson’s allegations had reached the mainstream media untainted by association with Wakefield.

Now can I please write about something else next week?

Comments

  1. #1 Lawrence
    September 2, 2014

    @Yo – the only hysterical person here is you, for your unfounded concerns about Thimerasol…..as for distribution to the 3rd World – perhaps you should take your concerns to WHO.

  2. #2 Narad
    September 2, 2014

    Did you also skip http://www.ijme.in/index.php/ijme/article/view/2015/4375 like Dear Kreb did?

    It’s not every day that one finds a journal using G—le Docs as a content delivery platform. It was also over its quota.

    Anyway, it’s cute that Rev. Sykes (first author rather than the Geiers’ copy editor for a change) resorted to outright lying, in an ethics journal no less:

    “That children are extremely sensitive to thimerosal has been documented since at least 1977 (25). In that year, a study was carried out in which thimerosal was added topologically [sic] to the stomach area of 13 children with infected umbilical cords, after which 10 of them died. According to the autopsy report [sic], the deaths were due to the effects of internal organic Hg toxicity.”

    Gee, Lisa, did you think nobody would check the actual reference?

    Leaving aside the fact that there were only nine autopsies and that exomphalos sure as shіt isn’t an “infected umbilical cord,” no, Lisa:

    “Whether the levels reported in Table 1 are acutely toxic or capable of producing chronic neurological damage in the newborn infant expose perinatally as opposed to the fetus, older child, or adult, is unclear.”

  3. #3 TomB
    September 2, 2014

    YoDaddie, why the hysterics about Thimerosal? With the removal of it from pediatric vaccines here in the US since around 2000, and the resulting absence of any effect on autism (or any disease) rates proves about as conclusively as you can get that it is not responsible for any harm.

  4. #4 Narad
    September 2, 2014

    Simply pretending that nothing can be done besides the status quo is irresponsible.

    Babbling about blister packs while clearly failing to understand the basic concepts in play is simply moronic.

  5. #5 Lawrence
    September 2, 2014

    @Narad – and having him complain about the “status quo” like nothing is currently being done to enhance the ability to deploy vaccines out (heck, even the Gates Foundation is spending millions in grants to find better delivery methods) into the developing world is idiotic.

    Just like, him complaining about the current methods of vaccine delivery (including storage and deployment in areas where there is little to no electricity & no cold storage), is stupid as well.

  6. #6 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    September 2, 2014

    Maybe we can develop something even cheaper. Similar to this, but for liquid:

    Perhaps someone could. There are difficulties in packaging liquids that have to remain sterile that are not the same as the issues of packaging pills which don’t require the same degree of sterility.

    I’d like to think that the financial incentives for a firm that packages large numbers of sterile, single use ampules would be sufficient for them to come up with the least expensive packaging that still meets regulatory controls. But it’s certainly possible that nobody has thought about that and that current designs are considered “good enough” and “cheap enough”.

  7. #7 Orac
    September 2, 2014

    Oh, looky. Threats:

  8. #8 Calli Arcale
    http://fractalwonder.wordpress.com
    September 2, 2014

    Lawrence — yeah, I think the trouble is that market forces work about as well as evolution. They drive towards a solution that sells well, not a solution that sells best, much less one that actually *is* best. Asking why manufacturers haven’t come up with a perfect sterile shelf-stable packaging for absolutely anything is a bit like asking why humans and gorillas suffer disproportionately from heart disease. It’s because we can get by well enough, and there isn’t a special incentive to do better.

    That’s where government funding can change the game, IMHO, though of course it doesn’t always since just as with company financing, the folks in charge of the money don’t necessarily share the same goals as we might.

  9. #9 sadmar
    Happy Day After Fake Labor Day, everybody!
    September 2, 2014

    Kent Heckenlively…What a tool. Can’t these people see that Wakefield is playing them for his own personal wealth?

    I think you meant ‘fucktarded derp-dripping douche canoe Weimaraner taint tool” 🙂

    @ Tim
    Is this you? (wink)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTKdHbiLim0
    (0:29 long clip)

    I didn’t see your apology to ScienceMom before writing my post #328. I take from your #344 that you understand I take your apology to be consistent with the subtext of your earlier posts, and you and I are chill on that, yes?

    May I take it that you’re sort of the ‘heads up’ gatekeeper around here or do you just work for Monsanto??

    LOL. No, I’m an outsider here: My feeling is that the reactions of long-time Oracians to my posts run the gamut from disdain to indifference. Re: Monsanto, I have been convinced by the science on GMOs, and rational argumentation based on corporate motivation, that Monsanto is not poisoning human beings. However, I do think they are poisoning the earth for profit, and wrecking the economies of small ‘indigenous’ farming communities in the process. I am OK with being labeled a ‘marxist’ in the sense of a broad intellectual tradition, but given the negative (and mostly inaccurate) connotations of the m-word, I think ‘anti-capitalist’ better describes ‘where I’m coming from.’*

    I’m taking from your change of tone that you’ve figured out some of the following already:
    1) Folks here tend to be pretty literal-minded by nature.
    2) Over the 10 years this blog has been up, the long-timers have been subject to a steady stream of anti-vax vitriol that is both inhumanly ugly and means exactly what it says.
    3) The combination of 1 & 2 results in an overwhelming ‘confirmation bias’ that reads any comment coming from outside ‘the science paradigm’ as an instance of #2-type trolling. E.g. I took your link to the apocalyptic Christian website as a joke, and ScienceMom took you to be actually endorsing that POV. That might strike you as odd if you’ve just arrived here from a different ‘discursive community’ (or as Lyotard would call it, an ‘incommensurable language game’), but if you look at the history of this contestation, it’s not odd at all.

    If you haven’t done so already, please look at Dr. Gorski’s post: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-price-of-skepticism/ …especially the section near the bottom where Dr. Gorski discusses how the attacks against him are mild compared to what other critics of anti-vaxers have experienced.
    …….
    * The reference to Fake Labor Day in the ‘location’ field reflects the critique that the national holiday at the end of Summer is ‘the day the bosses gave us’, and the Real Labor Day is the day the workers created for themselves, i.e. the 1st of May.

  10. #10 Krebiozen
    September 2, 2014

    Dawn

    I admit had to look up gish gallop. lol.

    I was referring to YD, not you. I try to restrict labeling things as a gishgallop to when someone posts a whole list of references that they assume no one will have the time and effort to go through to debunk individually, which you have not done here.

  11. #11 Krebiozen
    September 2, 2014

    YD,

    Did you also skip […] like Dear Kreb did? Did you also skip […] like Dear Kreb did? Is that how sciency mom does her science as well? By quick scan after disrespectfully insolently ad homineming the authors?

    I didn’t skip it, I skimmed through it, and it isn’t an ad hominem to believe the Geiers are unreliable sources of information because:
    a) Mark Geier’s appalling abuse of autistic children has resulted in his medical license being suspended or revoked in every state in which he was licensed
    b) The Institute of Medicine has described the Geiers’ research as “seriously flawed, ‘uninterpretable’, and marred by incorrect use of scientific terms”, and
    c) The American Academy of Pediatrics said the Geier’s research contains, “numerous conceptual and scientific flaws, omissions of fact, inaccuracies, and misstatements”.

    I don’t trust the Geier’s work because it has been repeatedly demonstrated to be misinformed (to put it politely).

    Please look up ad hominem and figure out what it means before embarrassing yourself further.

    As for the paper you linked to, it complains that a harmless ingredient has been removed from vaccines in the developed world but not the developing world. So what? In the absence of any remotely convincing evidence that thimerosal in vaccines has every harmed anyone anywhere ever, I don’t see what the fuss is about. The money it would take to replace thimerosal in the developing world could be far better spent in many other ways. They have plenty of real problems and really don’t need nutty people from the developed world trying to scare them with imaginary bogeymen.

  12. #12 Krebiozen
    September 2, 2014

    Narad,
    But the application of 0.1 % tincture of thimerosal, containing 5,000 micrograms thimerosal in every teaspoonful, is exactly the same as an IM injeciton of 25 micrograms of thimerosal, isn’t it?

  13. #14 AdamG
    September 2, 2014

    Tim, clearly it was organic food!
    http://www.pd.infn.it/~dorigo/autism_organic_foods.jpg

  14. #15 Tim
    September 2, 2014

    @yoDaddie

    Jon Anderson is a fuckbag squared my most cherished vocalist — especially when combined with Vangelis

    thx

  15. #16 YoDaddie
    USA
    September 2, 2014

    Dear Krebiozen,

    You say that it is not ad hominem to believe that some individuals are unreliable sources of information because of various reasons you choose to personally hold, so you thus discount their logic without giving them serious analysis, regard, etc. Am I summarizing you correctly? That is not “ad hominem”?

    Hummmm…. Really?

    Shall we agree to use Merriam-Webster? Assuming so, please, if you have not already, go to:

    “Ad Hominem.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 2 Sept. 2014. .

    So let’s say that some person develops and presents an argument. Because you harbor from past experiences specially held feelings or/or prejudices against that person, you decide to attack that person’s character rather than answering their contentions made.

    That, sir, is exactly what you and a many of your fellow groupies have exactly done here repeatedly. And that, sir, is exactly ad hominem. You are so blinded by your prejudices that you can’t even figure out that you are prejudicing your decisions based on your feelings of others’ character, rather than appealing to the intellect of their logic being presented.

    You confuse “appealing to the intellect of their logic being presented” with “appealing to their intellect” – as you believe it to be”.

    As for the paper I linked to – it states that there is a double-standard. That we produce for ourselves and our wealthy neighbors non-Thimerosal vaccinations while producing for the less fortunate the mercury ladened.

    Attacking the author’s characters makes that no less true. Pointing out over and over and over that most US vaccines no longer contain mercury does nothing to address the fact that mult-use flu vaccines are hugely distributed in the US today, even to children, and that a full schedule of mercury ladened vaccines are still being distributed world-wide.

  16. #17 Tim
    September 2, 2014

    We’re *chill*, Sadmar —

    I hope I gave an exemplary performance. mind the rabbit.

  17. #18 YoDaddie
    USA
    September 2, 2014

    Apologies – the link didn’t work:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem
    Definition of AD HOMINEM

    1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
    2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

  18. #19 Tim
    September 2, 2014

    @AdamG — It’s as I hinted at before… The start of the timeline is the same (~1996-1998 depending on geolocation) — it hid the decline.

  19. #20 brewandferment
    September 2, 2014

    PGP@400: Anatomy and physiology textbooks are readily available and would address the issue of oxytocin, at least. As I assume would Pubmed. And I’m pretty sure people you’ve appeared to trust here have told you about it as well.

  20. #21 brewandferment
    September 2, 2014

    YoDaddy: The point you are also missing is that since thimerosal IS NOT a problem, all money spent towards eliminating it from 3rd world vaccine programmes is money wasted that would definitely be better spent on known value added projects. Like, for example, drilling bore hole wells so that there is safe drinking water.

  21. #22 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    September 2, 2014

    If someone has provided unreliable data in the past and you bring that up when they bring up new data instead of examining their current findings, that may technically be ad hominem, but is also prudent. The term more typically is used when the current topic is unrelated to the criticism.

    Say for instance Duncan Idaho has a history of claiming that vitamin D will cure all ills, and has cited 15 studies which either don’t prove vitamin D cures something, were poorly performed, or which demonstrate that vitamin D can be actually harmful. Should Mr. Idaho come back and say “here’s another study showing how wonderful vitamin D is”, he MAY have actually found something important. However, one could not be faulted for placing a higher burden of proof on Duncan as he has previously been unreliable (and somewhat tiresome, in all truth) on this topic.

    If, on the other hand, one were to bring up Mr. Idaho’s failure to properly protect House Atreides in discussions of the efficacy of vitamin D, that would clearly be an ad hominem attack.

  22. #23 Tim
    September 2, 2014

    @Sadmar

    I have been convinced by the science on GMOs, and rational argumentation based on corporate motivation, that Monsanto is not poisoning human beings.

    It is a *binary* soft-kill, Sadmar. It is like that original Batman where the Joker says “She’s not smiling…She’s been using Brand X”

    The one study that put the BT with the application rate of glyphosate got maligned — They said that those type rats are prone to tumors anyways. Never mind that it was the same type rat and the same number of rats that Monsanto used for justification but just carried out for a longer term — They were very carefull to not address the hair growing out of their mouths. Equivalent for humans would be what? ~25-30 years??

    http:/?naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html

    (I know ya’ll don’t like that guy, but it is the quick reference for me to post the pictures)

  23. #24 YoDaddie
    USA
    September 2, 2014

    Dear Mephistopheles O’Brien,

    Exactly! You get it.

    When I point out that they are resorting to ad hominem attacks – rather than manning up and saying, “Ya, we do that. When we think it’s justified. Get use to it.”, or whatever – they instead try to weasel out by painting lipstick on it.

  24. #25 Tim
    September 2, 2014

    Mephistopheles O’Brien,

    Mr. Idaho’s failure to properly protect House Atreides in discussions of the efficacy of vitamin D

    It would have helped if he pointed out that he gets the vitamin D encapsulated with the (now poisonous) soy oil — Otherwise, he risks spending the rest of his days in a pain amplifyer.

  25. #26 herr doktor bimler
    September 2, 2014

    Say for instance Duncan Idaho has a history of claiming that vitamin D will cure all ills

    Never trust a man with metallic Tleilaxu eyes.

  26. #27 Tim
    September 2, 2014

    @back_channel IT personnel

    It would be nice to go back and edit a post (with the caveat that one did so, of course) because I would like to replace *helped* with *prudent*.

    Of course, it’s only a suggestion but dayum.

  27. #28 Lawrence
    September 2, 2014

    @Tim – we’ve been asking for the edit function for a while now…..

  28. #29 Tim
    September 2, 2014

    Narad,

    after a six-month dose of several hundred milligrams.

    Is ‘Clarkson’ a psuedonym for Mengele?

  29. #30 Johnny
    127.0.0.1
    September 2, 2014

    I would disagree on the desirability of a comment editor. Sure, I’ve had my share of typos and auto-incorrects that I notice after I submit. But suppose, just to use a recient event, YoDaddie could go back and erase the history of his “blog”. Nobody would be able to come along and join in the laughter.

    Besides, the anti-vaxers already rewrite science. Imagine what they would do if they could rewrite history.

  30. #31 ChrisP
    September 2, 2014

    The one study that put the BT with the application rate of glyphosate got maligned — They said that those type rats are prone to tumors anyways. Never mind that it was the same type rat and the same number of rats that Monsanto used for justification but just carried out for a longer term

    You have got your useless studies mixed up.

    This has been done before, but just in case anyone hasn’t looked back:

    SD rats are prone to tumours as they age. This makes them ideal for 90 day feeding studies, but useless for 2 year feeding studies. If 80% of you controls get tumours, you need really large numbers to see any significant effect.

    That particular study fed glyphosate (including homeopathic amounts) and GM corn, not BT.

  31. #32 Narad
    September 2, 2014

    But the application of 0.1 % tincture of thimerosal to the general area where your innards are on the wrong side of your body, containing 5,000 micrograms thimerosal in every teaspoonful, is exactly the same as an IM injeciton of 25 micrograms of thimerosal, isn’t it?

    FTFY. Don’t make me repost the “Lisa Sykes goes to Uruguay” video.

    Was there anything in the Friberg & Vostal that helped?

  32. #33 Narad
    September 2, 2014

    ^ “Vostol”

  33. #34 Calli Arcale
    http://fractalwonder.wordpress.com
    September 2, 2014

    YoDaddie: they’re not attacking the Geiers for their character but for their history of deliberately distorting data to suit their own ends — specifically, to allow them to profit off of a therapy for autism that only they would administer (because every other medical clinic knew it was insane). Now, their *character* would make an excellent target, because what they did to all those children was reprehensible, but that’s not the point here. The point is their continous and consistent misrepresentation of data concerning autistic children in order to profit themselves.

    THAT is what makes them untrustworthy. Not the fact that they injured scores of children, denying them the normal course of puberty for no gain whatsoever, but the fact that they persistently manipulated data — both in their publications and in their clinical data, which they gamed by intentionally using unprovoked baseline values for mercury exposure on provoked samples — for the specific intent of discrediting any competitors and driving business to themselves.

    That is a valid reason to distrust them. And if you disagree that it’s a valid reason to distrust their work, then I invite you to explain why we should trust workers who have persistently demonstrated their work to be unreliable.

  34. #36 Antaeus Feldspar
    September 2, 2014

    I always love it when people try to argue “I know better than you do what this term means, and when it is and isn’t applicable – because I looked it up in a dictionary!!”

    An ad hominem argument is one that tries to argue that a person’s argument is weakened by factors about that person which do not relate to the argument.

    But the probative value of any scientific research is dependent upon the credibility of the researcher. If the researcher has shown utterly poor scientific judgment by concluding “oh, what happens in a benzene solution at high temperature must also happen in the human body and that means using chemical castration drugs on autistic children is okey-dokey and we should sell that to desperate parents of autistic children as a service” (and believe me, describing that as only a lapse in scientific judgment is giving them incredible benefit of the doubt) then we’d be foolish to say “Oh, well, hey, just because they have a history of shoddy science, why should we even consider that maybe this is MORE shoddy science by them??”

  35. #37 Science Mom
    http://justthevax.blogspot.com/
    September 2, 2014

    So let’s say that some person develops and presents an argument. Because you harbor from past experiences specially held feelings or/or prejudices against that person, you decide to attack that person’s character rather than answering their contentions made.

    That, sir, is exactly what you and a many of your fellow groupies have exactly done here repeatedly. And that, sir, is exactly ad hominem. You are so blinded by your prejudices that you can’t even figure out that you are prejudicing your decisions based on your feelings of others’ character, rather than appealing to the intellect of their logic being presented.

    How strange that you refer to us as groupies; you also lack considerable self-awareness in addition to intellectual dishonesty and scientific illiteracy. None of your sources has supported your claims and you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel with a Sykes/Geier article, not even a study. It was critiqued, did you miss #s 398, 403 and 412? They all commented directly on the article; I will add that Lisa Sykes has no scientific education nor training that places her in the realm of authority on the subject.

    So what that it is also pointed out what atrocious excuses for scientists and human beings the Geiers are, your precious article wasn’t dismissed on that basis alone so grow up and put your big boy panties on. Your argument simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny and there’s nothing prejudiced about that. Given how fastidiously you are clinging to your beliefs and can’t resist calling the author a reptilian overlord and us groupies, you may want to double-check who actually has the prejudice.

  36. #38 Science Mom
    http://justthevax.blogspot.com/
    September 2, 2014

    Bah, ^in addition to having intellectual…^

  37. #39 Bill Price
    September 2, 2014

    YoDaddie (and whoever’s watching):
    There’s a subtle but profound difference between the ad hominem fallacy and the falsus in unum (or uno), falsus in omnibus rule. The difference was explained to me in each of the juries that I have served on over the years. It translates to, quite roughly, “get caught in a lie, your word is mud.”
    An ad hom argument would be, e. g., “He’s a cat-lover, so his word can’t be trusted about eggs.” This is a fallacy, since, cats and eggs are disjoint subjects (except for, perhaps, feline reproduction). However, “He’s lied about cats, so his word can’t be trusted about anything” is a perfectly valid example of applying that rule.
    The crucial difference isn’t character, as the
    ad hom definition would require: it’s history: particularly, a history of false statements. Note that it matters little whether the falsehood is intentional (like Wakefield), incompetent (like Hooker, to cut him some slack), mistaken, or misled (like many of the pro-vpd followers): a falsehood is false, and renders everything else suspect (at least).
    Many of the pro-VPD (anti-vax, “safe-vax”) crowd have been caught in so many falsehoods that it’s not an ad hom to (a) suspect that they’re doing it again and (b) discount the truth possibility of anything they might claim.
    Out of consideration to the fence-sitters, the commentariat here will often respond, yet again, to known falsehoods from the pro-VPD crowd, so that J. Random Reader can have some reality with which to counteract the anti-vax propaganda.

  38. #40 Krebiozen
    September 2, 2014

    YD,

    So let’s say that some person develops and presents an argument. Because you harbor from past experiences specially held feelings or/or prejudices against that person, you decide to attack that person’s character rather than answering their contentions made.

    If I said the Geiers are idiots therefore their work should not be trusted, that would be an ad hominem, which literally means “against the man” i.e. attacking the man instead of his arguments. Saying that I don’t trust the Geiers’ arguments because they have been shown to be “seriously flawed”, “‘uninterpretable”, “marred by incorrect use of scientific terms”, and contain, “numerous conceptual and scientific flaws, omissions of fact, inaccuracies, and misstatements” is not an ad hominem, it is a logical deduction from observable facts, nothing to do with feelings or prejudices. Prejudices are coming to a conclusion before the evidence has been examined, but in the case of the Geiers the evidence is in and it indicates they are full of BS.

    Short version: the Geiers work is seriously flawed and riddled with inaccuracies therefore they are idiots. That’s the opposite of an ad hominem.

    As for the paper I linked to – it states that there is a double-standard. That we produce for ourselves and our wealthy neighbors non-Thimerosal vaccinations while producing for the less fortunate the mercury ladened.

    Yes, there is a double-standard of sorts, but I see no evidence that it matters.

    Did you ever explain why 25 micrograms of mercury in a vaccine, of which perhaps 0.25 micrograms is retained wthout being excreted matters when we all absorb and retain 1,800 micrograms of mercury each year? You claimed that some people cannot excrete mercury, but surely the 3,000 micrograms (at least) they are exposed to every year would give them more problems than the 25 micrograms from vaccines.

    How do you explain this YD? The figures are reliable, as they agree with other estimates I have seen, and they are from Europe, nothing to do with the evil CDC. I’m interested in how you can square this with your conviction that thimerosal is poisoning people.

  39. #41 Dangerous Bacon
    September 2, 2014

    Steven Novella has summarized the serious flaws of the infamous Seralini rat study, which involve far more than the type of rat used:

    “The Seralini study suffers from small sample size, lack of statistical analysis, ambiguous results, a questionable selection of rat strain which maximizes noise in the data, and dubious ethical treatment of the animals for possible dramatic effect. At this point anyone referencing this study as support for their position that GMO has health risks sacrifices their credibility.”

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-seralini-gmo-study-retraction-and-response-to-critics/

  40. #42 Krebiozen
    September 2, 2014

    Narad,

    Was there anything in the Friberg & Vostal that helped?

    I’m still reading through it, thanks. It’s interesting stuff, way out of date, of course, but the old toxicological stuff is always worth nosing through.
    I have a similar review of aluminum toxicity somewhere, which as I recall has case histories of a couple of people who managed to poison themselves with aluminum by OD’ing on antacid tablets for years. It’s weird what some people get addicted to – we used to occasionally have to run bloods on suspected laxative addicts. But I digress….

  41. #43 Todd W.
    http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com
    September 2, 2014

    I think it’s worth pointing out that ingested methylmercury is very readily absorbed by the GI tract and passed directly into the bloodstream. In fact, about 95% of ingest MeHg makes it to the bloodstream. So much for the cells of the gut taking care of ingested mercury.

    Oh, and YoDaddie? I see you still did not offer an alternative to thimerosal. And here I thought you were going to offer potential solutions, rather than just JAQing off.

  42. #44 Tim
    September 2, 2014

    YoDaddie said,

    we can’t help big pharma distribute potentially safer vaccines outside of our borders?

    Tried that already, the Czechos still want reimbursment for their damn meercats.

    http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=aTo3LbhcA75I&pid=newsarchive

    Of course, it all hinges on what one means by *safer* Otherwise, it all goes to Tuskegee.

  43. #45 Tim
    September 2, 2014

    @sadmar

    I went back and read/parced your analysis of me. You’re very kind — you got it. But, you missed the mark completely.

    What does it take to get a William S. Burrows in this drull room??

  44. #46 Tim
    September 2, 2014

    Sadmar,

    I’ll get back to you after I’ve been broken in by my new writing instrument…

  45. #47 Narad
    September 2, 2014

    It’s interesting stuff, way out of date, of course, but the old toxicological stuff is always worth nosing through.

    It was mainly just aimed at the (then) in-press Suzuki stuff. It turns out that the volume containing the actual report is on the shelf at a local library. I might be able to muster scanning it tomorrow.

  46. #48 Tim
    September 2, 2014

    @herr doktor bimler

    a cogent argument against suicide and should be made into a PSA

    “”Brought to you by American exceptionalism and the Ad Council.

  47. #49 Tim
    September 3, 2014

    **disclaimer. What I’m about to do is usually contraindicated to sanity– so, let the hillarity ensue, if y’all must…

    I just had two thoughts I needed to get out before a militarized police force zipties them together:

    I was looking for a response from Krebiozen on the half life of mercury salts from ethylmercury in the brain being 120 days (though, they note, not as toxic) –Sorry Kreb, If it’s up there I can’t see it. (query is #304)

    Well, Inside the Rube Goldberg text (#309) YoDaddie posted were strange runes —

    following the plasma membrane potential of 45 mV

    ^^ could that potential be altered in the presence of the sodium laureth sulfate and similar detergents the little tikes bond with when off mommy’s fun bags??

    Any chance you guys being nice to me??

  48. #50 Narad
    September 3, 2014

    Why does the multibillion dollar federal “no questions asked, no one denied” Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund even exit [sic]?

    Hi, Justin.

  49. #51 YoDaddie
    USA
    September 3, 2014

    Dear Todd W,

    Assuming that you are correct (kind of a silly source), note that Krebiozen stands behind 2.41 micrograms of MeHg entering an average person on an average day. From fish essentially. How long does it take to ingest a fish? Now compare that to the time it takes for 25 micrograms of Thimerasol to be injected IM. The spikes are not comparable. Hell, let’s say the technician goofed and a bunch of the injection went directly into a blood vessel. (You sure that never happens?) Consider that spike. Do you know if spikes make a difference in Hg toxicity? Are you willing to bet my kid that you’re right?

    Also, I never promised to be an vaccine preservative expert, like you. But at least I’m trying. Did you miss #401? Where’s your contribution dear expert?

    Dear Krebiozen,

    Is it possible for the Geiers to perform valid research? I’m going to climb out on a really really long limb here and assume that you would reply in the affirmative, that yes, it is possible. Let’s theoretically assume that for the moment anyway.

    Saying that I don’t trust the Geiers’ arguments because they have been shown to be “seriously flawed”, “‘uninterpretable”, “marred by incorrect use of scientific terms”, and contain, “numerous conceptual and scientific flaws, omissions of fact, inaccuracies, and misstatements” is not an ad hominem, it is a logical deduction from observable facts, nothing to do with feelings or prejudices. Prejudices are coming to a conclusion before the evidence has been examined, but in the case of the Geiers the evidence is in and it indicates they are full of BS.

    In the theoretical case that these Geiers actually do, theoretically, perform valid research, you will have ignored their research because of your long list of prejudices, not because of anything wrong with their valid research. If you can’t find ad homimen staring back at you in that then we will have to agree to disagree on this just like we have to agree to disagree that In my world “…he colluded in leaving out some data in a study that didn’t say what he apparently believes it did” is dishonesty, but in yours it’s not.

    Regarding

    Did you ever explain why 25 micrograms of mercury in a vaccine, of which perhaps 0.25 micrograms is retained wthout being excreted matters when we all absorb and retain 1,800 micrograms of mercury each year? You claimed that some people cannot excrete mercury, but surely the 3,000 micrograms (at least) they are exposed to every year would give them more problems than the 25 micrograms from vaccines.
    How do you explain this YD? The figures are reliable, as they agree with other estimates I have seen, and they are from Europe, nothing to do with the evil CDC. I’m interested in how you can square this with your conviction that thimerosal is poisoning people.

    Countering your lack of worry, I find research, not from the Geiers, stating that injected ethylmercury actually is dangerous after all. Lots of it. Here’s one. Again:

    ToxSci Advance Access published March 27, 2014

    Transcriptomic analyses of neurotoxic effects in mouse brain after intermittent neonatal administration of thimerosal
    Xiaoling Li,* Fengqin Qu,* Wenjuan Xie,* Fengli Wang,* Hongmei Liu,* Shuhui Song,† Tingting Chen,† Yang Zhang,* Shu Zhu,* Yun Wang,* Caixia Guo,†§ Tie-Shan Tang*§ *

    State Key Laboratory of Biomembrane and Membrane Biotechnology, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China † Laboratory of Disease Genomics and Individual Medicine, Beijing Institute of Genomics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China

    … Our results indicate that higher dose of neonatal thimerosal-mercury (20 times higher than that used in human) is capable of inducing long-lasting substantial dysregulation of neurodevelopment, synaptic function, and endocrine system, which could be the causal involvements of autistic-like behavior in mice.

    In Orac-land Gregorian-like crescendos of derision pierced the interwebs regarding the 20 times higher amount injected. Nobody here stopped to wonder that, because they saw autistic-like results at 20 times amounts, does that mean that you actually have to use 20 times higher amounts to get those same autistic-like results in mice? What would have happened at 15 times? 10 times? 5 times? 1 time? Who knows? We only know that at 20 times they observed autistic-like behavior. Also, nobody stopped to wonder how human autistic-like is 1/20th of the 20x autistic-like mouse behavior they observed anyway? Maybe in mice 1/20th of what they observed compares to average autism in humans. I don’t know. You don’t know. We aren’t going to inject 20x Thimerosal into enough people to do a useful study. It’s all guess-work.

    I say “Stop guessing”. Get rid of it.

  50. #52 Tim
    September 3, 2014

    Oh, never mind…. Sometimes, I think it was a bad idea to vacuum up the busted large manometer with the shop vac.

  51. #53 Krebiozen
    September 3, 2014

    Tim,

    I was looking for a response from Krebiozen on the half life of mercury salts from ethylmercury in the brain being 120 days (though, they note, not as toxic) –Sorry Kreb, If it’s up there I can’t see it. (query is #304

    Other recent studies have found a half-life of several years or of just a few days for inorganic mercury in the brain. It isn’t yet clear which is right.

    Some studies have shown that a higher percentage of ethylmercury that ends up in the brain may be dealkylated to inorganic mercury than methylmercury. The antivaccine brigade always omit to mention that the proportion of methylmercury that gets into the brain is much larger than the proportion of ethylmercury (see Magos 1985). That’s because ethylmercury is eliminated from the body about six times faster than methylmercury. The quicker it is eliminated from the blood, the less gets into the brain. They also omit to mention that (from Magos):

    In spite of the higher inorganic mercury concentration in the brain of ethylmercury than in the brain of methylmercury-treated rats, the granular layer damage in the cerebellum was widespread only in the methylmercury-treated rats. Thus inorganic mercury or dealkylation cannot be responsible for granular layer damage in alkylmercury intoxication. Moreover, histochemistry demonstrated no inorganic mercury in the granular layer.

    In other words it doesn’t seem to be the inorganic mercury that causes damage anyway.

    Really this is all irrelevant, given the tiny doses of thimerosal and ethylmercury we are talking about which are dwarfed by the amounts we get from other sources. In Greenland mean mercury intake is 42 micrograms per day in the fall and 66 micrograms per day in the summer, mostly methylmercury, making their yearly intake around 20,000 micrograms. Compare the 25 micrograms of thimerosal each year from a flu vaccine.

  52. #54 Krebiozen
    September 3, 2014

    Link for Greenland mercury data (the Look Inside button gets you the first two pages).

  53. #55 Dawn
    September 3, 2014

    @Kreb. No it wasn’t you who accused me of gish gallop and didn’t mean it to sound like I was referring to you, there were some others that I was not corresponding with at all that felt that was their best two cents to add in.

  54. #56 paradigmshift
    September 3, 2014

    You guys are going round and round in circles with the whole thimerosol thing, you are arguing data from toxicology from adults NOT infants whose neurological system is not even fully formed until around 2 years old. Flu shots in utero and in early infancy and other shots with thimerosol and aluminium and other neurotoxins have not been evaluated properly for safety in infants.
    This forum is pretty offensive and malicious and it is clear there are some pretty large egos in the way of any constructive debate.

  55. #57 Johnny
    127.0.0.1
    September 3, 2014

    paradigmshit-

    I believe you posted the wrong link to back up your claim. You claimed that it’s incorrect to use adult data for toxicity of thimerosal when used in children, and that the subject has not been studied. You then post a link to a story about the MMR, which as everybody knows by now has never had thimerosol.

    When come back, please bring evidence.

  56. #58 Johnny
    127.0.0.1
    September 3, 2014

    I’ve a comment in moderation because of a typo, for which I apologize. When it comes out, you see why.

  57. #59 YoDaddie
    USA
    September 3, 2014

    Gishgalloping along…

    Since I don’t harbor perma-hard-wired anti-Geier logic defeating neural circuits, I’m forced to examine their stuff rather than off-hand it.

    Please unseath your gut hooks and prepare to eviscerate this:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24354891

    A two-phase study evaluating the relationship between Thimerosal-containing vaccine administration and the risk for an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis in the United States.
    Geier DA, Hooker BS, Kern JK, King PG, Sykes LK, Geier MR1.

    I understand that VAERS is perhaps not expressly designed for this type of analysis, but I’m not sure that nothing useful can be gleaned from it. Overall the study seems worth analyzing. So, have y’all or not?

  58. #60 Lawrence
    September 3, 2014

    @Yo – stop it, you’re killing me! Geiers & Hooker, really?

    There is a search function on this blog – you should really learn to use it. It has been addressed here, many, many times in the past.

  59. #61 Science Mom
    http://justthevax.blogspot.com/
    September 3, 2014

    I understand that VAERS is perhaps not expressly designed for this type of analysis, but I’m not sure that nothing useful can be gleaned from it. Overall the study seems worth analyzing. So, have y’all or not?

    I’m beginning to think you are a masochist too. Of course VAERS isn’t designed to do this, it’s a passive reporting system which requires a denominator. And oh look, the Geiers and Hooker just made one up for it. They selected just 2 DTaPs in use as proxies for Hg and Hg-free, churned up ASD reports associated with them and then used the net number of those DTaPs distributed in the U.S. at that time to rectally-source a completely bogus figure. VAERS doesn’t determine causality and number of vaccines distributed doesn’t mean uptake. So you tell us how this is valid.

    Phase II suffers from the same completely wrong statistical application as Hooker’s MMR withdrawn paper. And even worse, their cases and controls weren’t even as rigorously collected as in the DeStefano study. They mined the VSD for ASD cases and their “controls” consisted of children without an ASD diagnosis at the time (no attempt at actual matching), used Hep B vaccination as a proxy for Hg exposure split them up into 3 exposure subgroups and applied Fisher’s exact test which is completely wrong and will pretty much guarantee you can find any association you are looking for.

    Try reading and critiquing your own studies instead of asking us to do your work for you. But please do share why this study is so compelling to you.

  60. #62 Politicalguineapig
    September 3, 2014

    Tim: Any chance you guys being nice to me??

    Maybe if you start posting coherently and demonstrating some active intelligence. Right now you’re just taking up space and whining.

  61. #63 Tim
    September 3, 2014

    thx, Krebiozen.

    several years or of just a few days

    Yea, they do that interpreting scripture to — 6 days? 6 billion years?

    So they split it down the middle {sort of, anyways} and still get it wrong:
    “a day is as a thousand years” — 6000 years, for sure.

    ——————————–

    Say, doctor dudes; I really did tell my GP to hand over my medical records being angry over having to fumble with refill hassle and being made to feel *subjugated* that way.

    I’m not usually the one to be changing horses in the middle of a race — He’s been a great doctor to me.

    But, I feel like I can’t tell him the whole story and hydroxyzine is not available round the back of the hot water pipes…

    —————————————————

    Just out of curiosity, Would it be possible for someone to have a single failed kidney and not know about it?

  62. #64 Vicki
    September 3, 2014

    Tim @464:

    I am not a doctor, but it is possible for a person to have one of his two kidneys vanish entirely and not know it. This happened to my grandfather. He had two healthy kidneys when he was 70. Twenty-odd years later, when he was in the hospital for something else, the doctors noticed that he only had one kidney. He was not having any kidney-related symptoms (and eventually died of something else, at age 97).

    We were told that kidneys do that occasionally, and that there was nothing to worry about, as the other kidney was doing a fine job. This makes sense: transplant recipients are given one kidney, not two, and live donors with two healthy kidneys can give one of them to someone who needs it.

  63. #65 JGC
    Know I'm responding late, but a couple of points for YoDaddie
    September 3, 2014

    Sounds like a specific concern to me.

    I can’t help it if you’re unable to correctly parse “identify and review all biological products which contained mercury compounds” (bold for emphasis)

    Please modify that to read that you’ve chosen to ignore the evidence that some scientists have produced that Thimerosal, at exposure levels achievable by routine vaccination, engenders risk.

    What evidence do you believe I’m ignoring, that demonstrates that thimerosal at exposure levels achievable by routine vaccination engenders risk?

    Be specific–Pubmed ID’s will be sufficient–and please don’t waste our time with another Gish Gallop list of studies addressing mercury or mercury compounds other than thimerosal, at exposure levels greater than result from vaccination, adminstered not to whole organisms but to isolated cells in culture, etc.

    re: the citation to “Thimerosal-Derived Ethylmercury Is a Mitochondrial Toxin in Human Astrocytes: Possible Role of Fenton Chemistry in the Oxidation and Breakage of mtDNA”, it’s a perfect example of the types of articles I’ve just reminded you do not support your position. (BTW< did you actually read it before citing it? If you had, you'd have found teh following:

    Thimerosal solutions were prepared in x1 PBS (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Rockford, IL, USA) to a maximum concentration of 360 μM and 10 μl were added to the 240 μl astrocytic volume.

    A quick calculation ((10 x 360)/240) demonstrates that the astrocytes were exposed to thimerosal at a concentration of 15 uM.

    When used as a preservative in multi-dose vaccine vials thimerosal is present at a concentration of 5 uM (25 ug in a 0.5 mL dose volume), and following injection it will be diluted by the entire blood volume of the recipient.

    The possible “worst case” exposure occur in a vaccinated newborn, where the blood volume is typically 85 mL/kg bodyweight. An 8 pound baby would have a blood volume of about 300 mL, so we’d talking about 600-fold dilution to a final circulating concentration of 8.3 nM.

    That’s about 1800 times LESS than the concentration at which these authors examined effects in cell culture.

    Repeat after me: the dose makes the poison.

  64. #66 JGC
    Okay, paradigmshift--I'll play along
    September 3, 2014

    Your evidence that thimerosal at exposure levels achievable by routine vaccination causes harm in infants as a consequence of their neurological development being incomplete until ~2 years after delivery would be…what, exactly?

    Be specific.

  65. #67 herr doktor bimler
    September 3, 2014

    Is it possible for the Geiers to perform valid research?

    It is conceivable that someone who has lied in the past, repeatedly, is this time telling the truth. It is conceivable that this time Lucy will not snatch the ball away. Sadly, I have only limited attentional resources, and I prefer to assign them to reading work by people who are not serial fabulists.

  66. #68 herr doktor bimler
    September 3, 2014

    In other words it doesn’t seem to be the inorganic mercury that causes damage anyway.

    Now this is an area in which I do actually have some expertise — or which I have co-authored papers, at least — and there is evidence that nerve tissue does not like accumulations of inorganic mercury. It seems to be an irritant rather than a serious neurotoxin, but still not a good thing. One source of evidence being the workers in poorly-regulated and poorly-ventilated fluorescent light factories who breathed too much mercury vapour for too long, and suffered measurable visual impairment which took a long time to go away. There was also some experimental work with squirrel monkeys, IIRC

  67. #69 lilady
    September 3, 2014

    The link for that Geier study leads us to the same journal which published….and then removed….Hooker’s study.

    Now I’m thinking that the peer-reviewer(s) on Hooker’s study are the serial fabulist(s).

    Meanwhile, Jake is blathering on about how Hooker’s publisher violated its own policies when they removed Hooker’s study.

  68. #70 Krebiozen
    September 3, 2014

    YD,

    Assuming that you are correct (kind of a silly source),

    The CDC is a “silly source”? Why?

    note that Krebiozen stands behind 2.41 micrograms of MeHg entering an average person on an average day. From fish essentially. How long does it take to ingest a fish?

    The table I linked to suggests we each ingest, inhale or otherwise are exposed to 1,340 micrograms of mercury each year merely through air, water and food, that’s excluding fish and dental amalgams.

    Now compare that to the time it takes for 25 micrograms of Thimerasol to be injected IM. The spikes are not comparable.

    Why aren’t they comparable? It seems likely to me that the time scales for absorption of mercury from the gut and from an IM injection would be much the same. As it happens we do have measurements of blood mercury levels after vaccination with a TCV and they never get anywhere near a toxic level. People in Greenland, the Faroes and the Seychelles all have far higher blood mercury levels all the time, and only the very highest levels, far, far higher than those seen post-vaccination, in pregnant women are associated with neurodevelopmental problems in their children. Bear in mind fetuses are far more vulnerable to mercury poisoning than infants, and methylmercury does seem to accumulate in the fetus.

    Hell, let’s say the technician goofed and a bunch of the injection went directly into a blood vessel. (You sure that never happens?)

    Where do technicians give vaccines? Anyone giving an IM injection knows they have to aspirate to ensure they haven’t hit a blood vessel. But anyway….

    Consider that spike. Do you know if spikes make a difference in Hg toxicity? Are you willing to bet my kid that you’re right?

    You don’t understand much about toxicokinetics, do you? How could an IV injection of 25 micrograms of thimerosal possibly do any harm? It is sustained blood levels that do the harm, not spikes. I would certainly bet your kid, and my (hypothetical) grandchildren on that. That 25 micrograms would break down to ethylmercury and be mostly excreted in the child’s feces over the following weeks. The tiny proportion that made it into the child’s brain would be far too small to cause any harm.

    Is it possible for the Geiers to perform valid research? I’m going to climb out on a really really long limb here and assume that you would reply in the affirmative, that yes, it is possible. Let’s theoretically assume that for the moment anyway.

    You can’t just admit you didn’t understand what an ad hominem is, can you? I don’t think the Geiers have the training or understanding to do valid research. I also think they have a massive conflict of interest that has led them to produce junk research in the past. It seems unlikely they are going to have a sudden change of heart and go back to school to learn about epidemiology and statistics.

    Countering your lack of worry, I find research, not from the Geiers, stating that injected ethylmercury actually is dangerous after all. Lots of it. Here’s one. Again: […]

    Is this is the best you can do? How many substances are poisonous in doses 20 times higher than we normally get? What happens in you drink 20 times as much alcohol as usual? Anyway, we know from other studies, this one for example, which used different doses of thimerosal in mice. They found:

    Injections modeled childhood vaccination schedules, with mice injected on postnatal days 7, 9, 11, and 15 with 14.2, 10.8, 9.2, and 5.6 μg/kg mercury from thimerosal, respectively, or vehicle. Additional groups received vaccine only or a 10 times higher thimerosal + vaccine dose. Low levels of mercury were found in blood, brain, and kidneys 24 h following the last thimerosal injection. Survival, body weight, indices of early development (negative geotaxis, righting) and hippocampal morphology were not affected. Performance was unaffected in behavioral tests selected to assess behavioral domains relevant to core deficits in neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism (i.e., social interaction, sensory gating, anxiety).

    Back to YD.

    Also, nobody stopped to wonder how human autistic-like is 1/20th of the 20x autistic-like mouse behavior they observed anyway? Maybe in mice 1/20th of what they observed compares to average autism in humans. I don’t know. You don’t know. We aren’t going to inject 20x Thimerosal into enough people to do a useful study. It’s all guess-work.

    It isn’t guesswork. There’s a ton of evidence directly contradicting your claims, this metaanalysis for example.

    There was no relationship between [autism/ASD] and thimerosal (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.31).
    There was no relationship between [autism/ASD] and mercury (Hg) (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.07).

    Over a million children and not a hint of an association between thimerosal and autism or other ASDs. I suppose you claim all ten studies in this metaanalysis are somehow unreliable.

    Also, thimerosal has been used in far higher doses for decades, with no signs of it causing anything resembling autism.

    I say “Stop guessing”. Get rid of it.

    I say “Stop flogging a dead horse”. The particular horse you are flogging has been dead, buried and reduced to a skeleton for years.

  69. #71 herr doktor bimler
    September 3, 2014

    the 20x autistic-like mouse behavior
    Anyone capable of typing this combination of words without bursting into laughter is someone who is irredeemably out of touch with reality.

  70. #72 YoDaddie
    USA
    September 3, 2014

    Dear Krebiozen,

    Is this is the best you can do? How many substances are poisonous in doses 20 times higher than we normally get?

    So how many “X” would worry you? The Chinese say 20x human vaccine levels could be a problem. It is for mice anyway. Apparently. Or do you think that they are wrong? If someone injected twenty 25 microgram doses of Thimerosal into some average kid at the same time, that would be a big problem, or that would still be OK in your book? At what 25 microgram multiple do you start to worry?

  71. #73 paradigmshift
    September 3, 2014

    Johnny ,458
    JGC 466

    http://mercury-freedrugs.org/
    2nd link,—— Kern,J. Studies that show harm from Thimerosol, updated 2014

    There is the link to open many published studies that show harm from thimerosol. You will have to read through and find the ones that give the details about developing brains. I may suggest a basic biology text book that talks about myelinisation in the brain in the early months of life.

  72. #74 Science Mom
    http://justthevax.blogspot.com/
    September 3, 2014

    @ paradigmshift, the way it works is that you provide the studies which support your claims including a basic biology textbook which you should have availed yourself of first. If you think that CoMedy is a resource for anything other than gullible fools helping to keep the Geiers in a posh lifestyle then you should also repeat middle school.

  73. #75 Krebiozen
    September 4, 2014

    YD,

    So how many “X” would worry you? The Chinese say 20x human vaccine levels could be a problem. It is for mice anyway. Apparently. Or do you think that they are wrong?

    Looking again at that Chinese study, I don’t have access to the full text of the study so I don’t know if by “FVB mice were subcutaneously injected with thimerosal-mercury at a dose which is 20× higher than that used for regular Chinese infant immunization during the first 4 months of life” they mean a weight-adjusted dose or the same dose in micrograms.Given the results they got, I suspect that the latter may be the case, as many other studies find no effects at these levels. I also don’t know the study design, how many mice were used or what statistical techniques were used.

    Anyway, lots of things are more or less toxic in mice than in humans. It is the effects in humans that are important, and we have very few reasons to believe these amounts of thimerosal may be toxic in humans and many good reasons to think they are not.

    If someone injected twenty 25 microgram doses of Thimerosal into some average kid at the same time, that would be a big problem, or that would still be OK in your book? At what 25 microgram multiple do you start to worry?

    The study I cited injected mice with,, “14.2, 10.8, 9.2, and 5.6 μg/kg mercury from thimerosal”, and found:

    Survival, body weight, indices of early development (negative geotaxis, righting) and hippocampal morphology were not affected. Performance was unaffected in behavioral tests selected to assess behavioral domains relevant to core deficits in neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism (i.e., social interaction, sensory gating, anxiety).

    If an infant weighing 5 kg is given 25 mcg thimerosal, that’s 5 mcg/kg, lower than the lowest dose used in this study, yet the highest dose found no problems. There are multiple studies that support this – you have unwittingly supplied several yourself.

    Haven’t you taken in any of the evidence we have shown you here? You ignore all the studies that found no problems except in doses or concentrations orders of magnitude higher than those seen after vaccination, and only give any credence to those that support your prejudices, however tenuously, which is, ironically, the blinkered attitude you accuse us of.

    You have to take a step back and look at the evidence as a whole, the in vitro studies, the animal studies, human studies, epidemiological studies, genetic studies, all of it. Looked at as a whole the evidence paints a clear picture: vaccines don’t cause autism, thimerosal doesn’t cause autism, mercury doesn’t cause autism, autism starts in the uterus, the amounts of thimerosal in vaccines are far too tiny to cause problems even in premature children.

    I don’t think you have commented on the metaanalysis I linked to. If thimerosal in vaccines is so dangerous, how is it that a metaanalysis of over a million children found no hint of an association? Bear in mind that this sample size should be sufficient to detect very small differences in incidence of ASDs. Were those Australian researchers somehow paid off by unscrupulous CDC shills?

  74. #76 paradigmshift
    September 4, 2014

    Science Mom,

    The link goes to a document that shows a number of studies, FYI. although it is obvious you have made up your mind and have got a bit of a righteous attitude .
    Total waste of time.

  75. #77 Lawrence
    September 4, 2014

    For very obvious reasons, the Geiers for legitimate sources of information for NO ONE…..

  76. #78 Antaeus Feldspar
    September 4, 2014

    Is it possible for the Geiers to perform valid research? I’m going to climb out on a really really long limb here and assume that you would reply in the affirmative, that yes, it is possible.

    Is it possible for them to do trustworthy research? No. They had a chance to do that. They squandered it. That bell cannot be un-rung.

  77. #79 Krebiozen
    September 4, 2014

    paradigmshift,

    The link goes to a document that shows a number of studies, FYI. although it is obvious you have made up your mind and have got a bit of a righteous attitude . Total waste of time.

    Look at all the evidence, as I suggested above. It forms a coherent picture that is consistent with vaccines in general and thimerosal in particular being safe. Why would anyone come to a different conclusion? Can you blame people for getting a bit snarky when people keep claiming that thimerosal is dangerous when the evidence tells us it isn’t? Dealing with the likes of YD is like dealing with a child who simply won’t believe there isn’t a bogeyman under the bed, even after you shine a torch under there to show there isn’t.

  78. #80 JGC
    September 4, 2014

    There is the link to open many published studies that show harm from thimerosol.

    Paradigmshift, please identify which which of the studies on Kem’s list you consider to present the single most credible, most compelling case that thimerosal at levels achievable as the result of routine childhood vaccination engenders greater risk than remaining vulnerable to the infectious diseases vaccination protects against and we”ll discuss its design and findings, so that we don’t waste time looking at studies which aren’t applicable to vaccine safety (e.g., studies like Yodaddies offered in isolated cells in culture at exposures far greater than achievable by vaccination).

  79. #81 YoDaddie
    USA
    September 4, 2014

    Dear Krebiozen,

    …you have unwittingly supplied several yourself

    I haven’t unwittingly done jack. As I’ve said multiple times I’m only here to find out what’s going on. I’m reading studies from both sides of “the fence”. I’m not a trained toxicologist or a trained epidemiologist. The best I can do is read and learn as much as I can with the skills I’m packing; as deficient as y’all thrill yourselves pointing out. You pronounce the horse dead but “they” say that your pet theories and studies are flawed and biased and useless. When y’all Illuminati Hyena Orac groupies first laid eyes on me, you screamed “anti-vaxxer” as your eyes bulged even farther while you tried to out-lope each other to me for the evisceration. Orac says that he can count on one hand the trolls he’s permanently banished, but he forgot to warn me that he can also count on one hand the number of open-minded groupies lurking here.

    I will say that you Krebiozen and a very few others here seem to be able to carry on a somewhat civil dialogue, but JAQazs like Todd W, Lawrence et al. are extremely counterproductive to your cause of winning “anti-vaxxers” over to your side. If y’all really do care about that. My being cheeky and sarcastic and rude back myself doesn’t change anything. I represent me. I suspect that you are more interested in being the “Top Eviscerating Hyena” than actually giving a crap about kids. But sometimes you seem to be proving that wrong. Please do. When I make junior troll mistakes y’all giggle at me, what fun, but when epidemiologists and toxicologists make mistakes, people die.

    I don’t think you have commented on the metaanalysis I linked to. If thimerosal in vaccines is so dangerous, how is it that a metaanalysis of over a million children found no hint of an association? Bear in mind that this sample size should be sufficient to detect very small differences in incidence of ASDs. Were those Australian researchers somehow paid off by unscrupulous CDC shills?

    Because a study which concludes that mercury is protective has got to have issues, I’m thinking. And also because I found stuff that seems to pretty effectively eviscerate it from the other side of the fence. They point out problems, such as, Verstraten himself saying about his study used in your metaanalysis:

    Surprisingly, however, the study is being interpreted now as negative [where ‘negative’ implies no association was shown] by many…. The article does not state that we found evidence against an association, as a negative study would. It does state, on the contrary, that additional study is recommended, which is the conclusion to which a neutral study must come… A neutral study carries a very distinct message: the investigators could neither confirm nor exclude an association, and therefore more study is required

    Regarding

    You have to take a step back and look at the evidence as a whole, the in vitro studies, the animal studies, human studies, epidemiological studies, genetic studies, all of it.

    That’s exactly what I’m trying to do. All of them. Thus my concern with your ad hominem attacks (which according to Merriam et al. you are EXACTLY doing); starting with Orac’s original article above. Lots of what I’ve been fed so far doesn’t jive yet. For example, I’m told that 95% of ingested methylmercury goes directly into the blood stream. But when I eat a meal it seems like lots more than 5% hits the crapper. I’ve never measured; I’m just guessing. If so, how could that 95% report be accurate? What else did they miss? I’m not buying it yet. And aren’t ingested toxins routed through our livers, gall bladders, kidney’s etc. more directly than toxins injected IM or SQ? I’m trying to understand that. And lots of the above arguments you’ve presented so far are non-infant toxicology anyway, and although interesting, and perhaps even true, may be a waste of time if a potential autism-Thimerosal causation happens only in infants.

    Until I agree that Thimerosal is safe, I’m sticking with “get rid of it”. And why not anyway? Even if it actually is not harmful? Nobody here has explained that. Because you don’t want to appease the anti-vaxxers? Because all of your enjoyable Thimerosal eviscerations will have been in vain? Because you’ll have less anti-vaxxers to vex? Wouldn’t the anti-vaxxers that subsequently convert to pro-vaxxers be worth it if your real goal was simply to save the children? Hell, wouldn’t making me go the eff away alone be worth it?

  80. #82 Krebiozen
    September 4, 2014

    YD,

    I haven’t unwittingly done jack.

    So why would you post a link to that YouTube video titled, “How Mercury Destroys the Brain”, when it actually shows that only concentrations of thimerosal are damaging to snail astrocytes?

    As I’ve said multiple times I’m only here to find out what’s going on.

    There’s a term for that, that you would do well to familiarize yourself with.

    I’m reading studies from both sides of “the fence”.

    Yet you have only linked to those that you think show that thimerosal is dangerous. Odd that..

    I’m not a trained toxicologist or a trained epidemiologist.

    So whatever makes you think you can interpret the evidence better than those trained and qualified to do so?

    The best I can do is read and learn as much as I can with the skills I’m packing; as deficient as y’all thrill yourselves pointing out.

    When I find myself out of my depth in an area I know little to nothing about, I find an expert who does understand it. I certainly don’t go to a bunch of conspiracy theorists who endlessly circulate lies and misinformation on the subject. Why would anyone do that if they were honestly interested in the truth?

    You pronounce the horse dead but “they” say that your pet theories and studies are flawed and biased and useless.

    Show me a measured analysis of those “pet theories and studies” that demonstrates that they are “flawed and biased and useless” and you will have my attention. All you have posted here so far either doesn’t support your position or is very poor quality. That isn’t a subjective opinion, there are objective ways of assessing studies for quality, as they did in that metaanalysis.

    When y’all Illuminati Hyena Orac groupies first laid eyes on me, you screamed “anti-vaxxer” as your eyes bulged even farther while you tried to out-lope each other to me for the evisceration.

    Do you know how repulsive you come across in the way you write? I try to ignore it, but it makes trying to communicate with you very unpleasant.

    Orac says that he can count on one hand the trolls he’s permanently banished, but he forgot to warn me that he can also count on one hand the number of open-minded groupies lurking here.

    I have found the commenters here to be very open-minded. You just have to provide some compelling evidence o support your arguments, which you have utterly failed to do.
    I’ll ignore the tone-trolling, which is amusing given your own obnoxious comments.

    When I make junior troll mistakes y’all giggle at me, what fun, but when epidemiologists and toxicologists make mistakes, people die.

    Are you really suggesting that hundreds of researchers all over the world have made mistakes about thimerosal, and that it is killing people?

    Because a study which concludes that mercury is protective has got to have issues, I’m thinking.

    That demonstrates your true colors right there. When a study shows some barely statistically significant effect of thimerosal on tics, you think it is a meaningful finding. When a study shows a barely statistically significant negative association between thimerosal and autism the study has “issues”. Don’t you see the double-standard there?

    And also because I found stuff that seems to pretty effectively eviscerate it from the other side of the fence.

    Why haven’t you shared any of it here? Nothing you have posted so far remotely suggests that the amount of thimerosal in vaccines can cause any problems.

    They point out problems, such as, Verstraten himself saying about his study used in your metaanalysis:

    Was his study used in that metaanalysis? I haven’t got the list of included studies to hand. I doubt it, as it wasn’t a great study anyway, in my opinion, a retrospective cohort study based on unreliable data (such as the dose of thimerosal each child received), even Verstraeten himself admitted it was “the study that nobody thought we should do”. Even so, a lack of any positive associations in the final version is part of a body of evidence against the hypothesis that thimerosal causes autism, whatever Verstraeten might say.

    That’s exactly what I’m trying to do. All of them. Thus my concern with your ad hominem attacks (which according to Merriam et al. you are EXACTLY doing); starting with Orac’s original article above.

    I don’t know why you have such trouble understanding simple English. An ad hominem is an attack on a person’s character, not making a judgment about the quality of the research they do based on the undeniable fact that they have produced lousy work in the past.

    Lots of what I’ve been fed so far doesn’t jive yet. For example, I’m told that 95% of ingested methylmercury goes directly into the blood stream. But when I eat a meal it seems like lots more than 5% hits the crapper. I’ve never measured; I’m just guessing. If so, how could that 95% report be accurate?

    Good grief. Are you serious? Our GI tract actively absorbs a number of substances, leaving undigestible stuff behind. Lots of things are absorbed very efficiently, methylmercury being one of them. This isn’t in doubt, in mice 100% of ingested methylmercury was absorbed (PMID: 1522616) and studies looking at ingested radiolabeled methylmercury have empirically measured exactly what happens to it.

    What else did they miss? I’m not buying it yet.

    They didn’t miss anything. You have just made something up based on your complete lack of understanding of how digestion works, and assumed it is correct, when it isn’t.

    And aren’t ingested toxins routed through our livers, gall bladders, kidney’s etc. more directly than toxins injected IM or SQ? I’m trying to understand that.

    What difference would that make? It’s true that ingested substances are directed straight to the liver, but anything that ends up in the blood will find itself passing through the liver within a few minutes anyway.

    And lots of the above arguments you’ve presented so far are non-infant toxicology anyway, and although interesting, and perhaps even true, may be a waste of time if a potential autism-Thimerosal causation happens only in infants.

    It is you that first muddied the waters with in vitro and animal studies. I have simply pointed out that they don’t support your arguments. Neither do the many other studies that fail to provide any evidence that thimerosal causes autism.

    Until I agree that Thimerosal is safe, I’m sticking with “get rid of it”. And why not anyway? Even if it actually is not harmful? Nobody here has explained that.

    It would cost a lot of money to replace thimerosal in vaccines, and there are no good reasons, apart from the precautionary principle, to do so. As I pointed out before, there are many things that money would be much better spent on, in the developing world particularly,

    Because you don’t want to appease the anti-vaxxers?

    If thimerosal was removed from all vaccines, they would move on the the formaldehyde, the aluminum and the other scary-sounding ingredients. Do we remove those to? What about the antigens produced through genetically modified yeast, like Gardasil? There are people who claim, despite the evidence, that Gardasil is killing swathes of teenage girls. Do we pander to their irrational beliefs too?

    Because all of your enjoyable Thimerosal eviscerations will have been in vain? Because you’ll have less anti-vaxxers to vex?

    You aren’t under the illusion that it is RI commenters that decide global policy about thimerosal in vaccines, are you?

    Wouldn’t the anti-vaxxers that subsequently convert to pro-vaxxers be worth it if your real goal was simply to save the children?

    Like all the antivaxxers who converted to provaxxers when thimerosal was removed from all but the flu vaccine?

    Hell, wouldn’t making me go the eff away alone be worth it?

    I have little doubt you would either find something else in vaccines to blame for autism rates failing to go down, or you would take its removal as evidence that thimerosal was responsible for all the cases of autism diagnosed for decades, and start demanding compensation.

    Incidentally, what evidence would convince you that thimerosal doesn’t cause autism?

    Also, you still haven’t explained why you don’t accept the results of the metaanalysis I linked to above.

    I’m bored with this discussion, which is going around in circles. I’ll leave you with some conclusions of this paper (PDF) published by the AAP last year:

    Overwhelmingly, the evidence collected over the past 15 years has failed to yield any evidence of significant harm, including serious neurodevelopmental disorders, from use of thimerosal in vaccines. Dozens of studies from countries around the world have supported the safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines. Specifically, the Institute of Medicine, and others have concluded that the evidence favors rejection of a link between thimerosal and autism.

    Careful studies of the risk of other serious neurodevelopmental disorders have failed to support a causal link with thimerosal. In May 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics retired its 1999 statement on thimerosal after evaluating new studies. […] Had the evidence that is available now been available in 1999, the policy reducing thimerosal use would likely have not been implemented. Furthermore, in 2008 the World Health Organization (WHO) endorsed the use of thimerosal in vaccines.

  81. #83 Narad
    September 4, 2014

    As I’ve said multiple times I’m only here to find out what’s going on. I’m reading studies from both sides of “the fence”.

    Which is why you had to be shut down from comment flooding and copied in the AoA brain trust on your screamingly stupid exposé of “censorship.” Pull the other one, Diddly.

  82. #84 gaist
    September 4, 2014

    YoDaddie:

    Lots of what I’ve been fed so far doesn’t jive yet. For example, I’m told that 95% of ingested methylmercury goes directly into the blood stream. But when I eat a meal it seems like lots more than 5% hits the crapper. I’ve never measured; I’m just guessing. If so, how could that 95% report be accurate?

    You eat pure methylmercury?

  83. #85 gaist
    September 4, 2014

    Until I agree that Thimerosal dihydrogen monoxide is safe, I’m sticking with “get rid of it”. And why not anyway? Even if it actually is not harmful? Nobody here has explained that.

    Fixed that for you.

    But in all seriousness, let’s use an analogue…

    There is a minority who think seat belts are killing and injuring people. Should we listen to them and start manufacturing cars without seat belts? Because even when these people have not managed to demonstrate the dangers of seat belts, there are dozens of studies that have shown how and why seat belts increase passenger safety, and by how much, just because these people don’t agree with those studies therefore, by your argument, we should listen to them and get rid of those damnable restraints.

  84. #86 Phila
    September 4, 2014

    YoDaddie:

    Thus my concern with your ad hominem attacks (which according to Merriam et al. you are EXACTLY doing);

    Oh for Christ’s sake.

    One more time: Ad hominem is an argument based on alleged irrelevant character flaws. The Geiers’ shockingly bad science may well come down to character flaws — moneygrubbing dishonesty, for instance — but it’s still germane to the topic at hand; it’s not ad hominem to point out their huge scientific errors or their unethical behavior within their field.

    If a local mechanic has fixed my car three times, and has seriously botched the job on every attempt, it is not ad hominem to call him a lousy or untrustworthy mechanic. And it is not ad hominem to predict that he would do just as bad a job on his fourth attempt. Is it possible that he won’t screw my car up again? Sure. Am I obliged to give him another chance? Of course not! If anything, giving him a fourth chance would be a risky act of stupidity or inattention or ignorance on my part. After all, why would I want to ignore all the clear and compelling evidence that he’s not very good at his job?

    Using your definition of “ad hominem,” any reference to actual experience must be disallowed — relevant or not — because it may be prejudicial. But no such stricture exists; the point of avoiding ad hominem is not to suspend all judgment now and forever, but to avoid basing those judgments on facts that have nothing whatsoever to do with a given case. Is that what’s going here? Of course not.

    If I’ve never gone to a mechanic, but I argue that he’s a lousy mechanic because he has a Nickelback poster in his garage, or has Fox News blaring on his TV, or thinks “50 Shades of Gray” is the greatest novel of the past 200 years, that would be ad hominem. These could be reasons for preferring not to do business with him, depending on how strongly you feel, but not for arguing that he’s incompetent as a mechanic.

    Seriously, YoDaddie, this is not a very complicated concept. If you can’t figure out something this easy, and are incapable of learning from multiple corrections in plain English, what on earth makes you think you have an informed or reliable opinion about, say, ethylmercury? I mean, it’s a LOT easier to read and understand ad hominem as a layperson than it is to grasp decades of scientific papers and stats, and yet you’re failing miserably.

    Maybe taking a deep breath, admitting your mistake, and starting over from scratch would be a good step toward getting the information and reassurance you claim to want.

  85. #87 Dawn
    September 5, 2014

    Been reading through some of the messages that offer up a lot of information and brings me to some other thoughts on the issues. There is a study I located regarding glutathione and thimerosol (although I suspect that this could be paired with any toxin with similar results) – if anyone has seen other studies I’d like to know about them. However I can only see the abstract. I am certain Krebiozen or O’Brien probably can access the entire study. Glutathione depletion is something I am more interested in and how vaccines (and even environmental toxins) may come into play with this sort of thing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15527868

  86. #88 YoDaddie
    USA
    September 5, 2014

    Dear Phila,

    Regarding:

    Oh for Christ’s sake.
    One more time: Ad hominem is an argument based on alleged irrelevant character flaws. The Geiers’ shockingly bad science may well come down to character flaws — moneygrubbing dishonesty, for instance — but it’s still germane to the topic at hand; it’s not ad hominem to point out their huge scientific errors or their unethical behavior within their field.

    Let’s start with Webster et al.: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

    Definition of AD HOMINEM
    1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
    2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

    The idea in ad hominem is that every argument made be analyzed via the microscope of correctness and accuracy not the telescope of past performance. Nobody says that you’re not allowed to point out huge scientific errors or unethical behavior within a field. I’ve never said that. Ad hominem doesn’t say that.

    Let’s flip it. Say that you decided to not analyze someone’s papers because of your feelings of how damn awesomely magnificent historically they’ve been. So you decide to just agree with every conclusion they make cart blanche. That’s Ad hominem. Einstein’s cosmological constant was a big blunder, regardless of his previous genius. (Assuming it actually was a big blunder. Space-time may actually be smooth, turns out, possibly vindicating Einstein after all. But whatever, I’m just trying to use for analogy something everyone already knows about).

    I think that y’all are replacing in your minds “justifiable ad hominem” for “ad hominem”. Did you ever hear of justifiable homicide? Used to be you could legally knock off someone violating your marriage bed. But please note that they didn’t call it “non-homicide”. It was still homicide. Please check out this explanation.

    To say “Party A’s paper is crap because every paper Party A ever produced to date is crap!” is ad hominem.
    Which is why I said above:

    When I point out that they are resorting to ad hominem attacks – rather than manning up and saying, “Ya, we do that. When we think it’s justified. Get use to it.”, or whatever – they instead try to weasel out by painting lipstick on it.

    To not be able to believe someone because historically you’ve judged them to have compulsively lied is ad hominem. Justified ad hominem perhaps you may feel, but still ad hominem nonetheless.

    To say “Party A’s paper is crap because the data inclusion & exclusion criteria is not useful for these reasons, the statistical methods employed lead to unusable results because of this specific list of reasons and so on is not ad hominem. That’s legitimate critique. I suggest the best form, because that’s actually going to get you the farthest with people who don’t already share your prejudices.

    Above I said

    Regarding #60 – no children get multi-dose flu vaccines? Really? Check out http://issuesinmedicalethics.org/index.php/ijme/article/view/2015/4375

    And later:

    As for the paper I linked to – it states that there is a double-standard. That we produce for ourselves and our wealthy neighbors non-Thimerosal vaccinations while producing for the less fortunate the mercury ladened.

    Much interwebs piercing of author bashing ensued but eventually Krebiozen, after actually finally reading the paper, decided:

    Yes, there is a double-standard of sorts…

    Which proves that valuable conclusions can come from those held in contempt. Not taking the time to read material from folks you disrespect is not ad hominem. Stating that a specific conclusion they’ve drawn has to be wrong because every conclusion they’ve ever produced you feel is wrong is ad hominem.

    Above Orac says:

    Now, two years later, Thompson has gone from a tentative finding of a slight increase in tics in boys to saying that because tics are more common in autistic children, that there’s biological plausibility to the hypothesis that thimerosal causes “autism-like” features in children when given in vaccines to their mothers during pregnancy? WTF? It’s really hard not to conclude from his statements regarding tics and thimerosal that Dr. Thompson has not gone at least partially antivaccine, which, if true, may explain much.

    So we have a formerly respected CDC PhD deciding that there’s biological plausibility to the hypothesis that thimerosal causes “autism-like” features, like maybe tics. Y’all seem to exist in a binary world. Antivaxxers and provaxxers. If an antivaxxer says anything is it automatically wrong? Now that Thompson has disagreed with you and you’ve stamped his forehead “antivaxxer”, will he be professionally ostracized and from now on anything he produces will be discounted without analyzing each of his conclusions based on each of his conclusion’s proposed merits?

  87. #89 lilady
    September 5, 2014

    Y’all can take yourself over to Jake Crosby’s blog. He’s communicated with Brian Hooker and with Andrew Wakefield.

    Y’all can ask Jake about Hooker’s paper…he has the expertise because he has a MPH-Epidemiology degree and is in an epidemiology doctorate program.

  88. #90 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    September 5, 2014

    YoDaddie, you are misinterpreting ad hominem.

    Definition of AD HOMINEM
    1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
    2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

    Let’s look at the Geiers again. They bought into the discredited “autism is a form of mercury poisoning” hypothesis. They misinterpreted, and I’m being generous, a study that showed that mercury bonded to testosterone at high temperatures. They then composed a “treatment protocol” (and I’m being even more generous) that used lupron therapy to clear testosterone. In order to be able to use it, they deliberately misdiagnosed patients with precocious puberty. They made a lot of money out their marks (sorry, parents of patients) before they were closed down.
    Correctly pointing out that the Geiers lied and defrauded and using that to disregard their arguments is not an ad hominem, particularly if the study they conducted relates to the topic they were caught lying about.

  89. #91 Politicalguineapig
    September 5, 2014

    Yodaddie: To say “Party A’s paper is crap because every paper Party A ever produced to date is crap!” is ad hominem.

    No, it’s actually a valid point. In criminal law, if a person has committed crimes in the past and is unrepentant, it’s valid to believe they’ll commit crimes again. Also, please note that the Geiers have lost their medical licenses in every single state they ever practiced in. It ain’t just us saying they’re unreliable.

    Lilady: Uh, did you get hacked?

  90. #92 Gray Falcon
    September 5, 2014

    Let me also remind you that the Geiers have created a false institutional review board. Given that IRBs exist primarily to prevent another Tuskegee siphilis experiment, that is an extremely severe charge, and enough to render untrustworthy anything they produce.

  91. #93 Krebiozen
    September 5, 2014

    YoDaddie,

    The idea in ad hominem is that every argument made be analyzed via the microscope of correctness and accuracy not the telescope of past performance.

    That isn’t the idea at all! The idea is that you don’t judge someone’s argument based on their character. “YoDaddie is an idiot therefore what he writes isn’t true”, is an ad hominem, “YoDaddie has demonstrated a breath-taking ignorance of science and has gotten almost everything he has written about thimerosal here wrong therefore I’m not going to bother reading any more of his comments”, is not an ad hominem.

    Much interwebs piercing of author bashing ensued but eventually Krebiozen, after actually finally reading the paper, decided: Yes, there is a double-standard of sorts…
    Which proves that valuable conclusions can come from those held in contempt.

    That’s not a valuable conclusion. The AAP has stated that if we had had the information we now have about thimerosal safety it would never have been removed from vaccines. The WHO validated the use of thimerosal invaccines in 2008. So what if developing countries get it and we don’t. It doesn’t matter, as long as vaccines are properly preserved.

    Not taking the time to read material from folks you disrespect is not ad hominem. Stating that a specific conclusion they’ve drawn has to be wrong because every conclusion they’ve ever produced you feel is wrong is ad hominem.

    The really stupid thing about this argument is that I never said I didn’t take the time to read anything. I wrote, about the Geir’s and Haley paper, “I didn’t skip it, I skimmed through it”, I can skim through a document very quickly and extract the relevant material, it’s something I have become quite good at. Having skimmed through it I came to the conclusion that there was nothing of interest there, which didn’t surprise me based on the Geiers’ previous form, which I then pointed out.

    So we have a formerly respected CDC PhD deciding that there’s biological plausibility to the hypothesis that thimerosal causes “autism-like” features, like maybe tics.

    How have you remained completely oblivious to the fact that the tics finding was one of 19 statistically significant results out of 373 statistical tests done, which is exactly what we would expect if there was no association between thimerosal and tics? Do you not understand this, or do you just ignore it because it doesn’t fit your prejudices? It’s the science that matters, not the players, but you and many others don’t seem interested in anything that doesn’t support your prejudices. In contrast, here we spend a lot of time discussing stuff that apparently doesn’t support our beliefs. Don’t you see the enormous hypocrisy here?

    Y’all seem to exist in a binary world. Antivaxxers and provaxxers. If an antivaxxer says anything is it automatically wrong?

    If that were true why does Orac and the commenters here spend so much time analyzing and discussing various bits of evidence that antivaccine activists say prove that vaccines are more dangerous than doctors and scientists tell them?

    Now that Thompson has disagreed with you and you’ve stamped his forehead “antivaxxer”, will he be professionally ostracized and from now on anything he produces will be discounted without analyzing each of his conclusions based on each of his conclusion’s proposed merits?

    I will certainly look very closely at anything Thompson produces in future, assuming that anyone every wants to collaborate with him on any research ever again. I think he has revealed his ignorance about statistics and appallingly bad judgment about who he has confided in.

  92. #94 Krebiozen
    September 5, 2014

    Eek, typo city. Typing too fast and no time to properly proof read, sorry.

  93. #95 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    September 5, 2014

    To say “Party A’s paper is crap because every paper Party A ever produced to date is crap!” is ad hominem.

    I cannot recall anyone actually saying that. The actual statement is more along the lines of “Party A’s paper is very probably crap because every paper Party A ever produced to date is crap!” Naturally, all one has to do to counter that is to show how the latest paper is not crap.

  94. #96 Johnny
    127.0.0.1
    September 5, 2014

    Y’all can ask Jake about Hooker’s paper…

    You can try, but he’s not home.

    Jake responds to almost every comment. I’d bet $5 he has 45% of the comments, and $100 that he has 40%. But Narad has run him off his own blog.

    Using Jake’s time stamps, I see Narad challenged Jake to defend Hookers paper at 2 SEP 1105PM
    http://www.autisminvestigated.com/biomed-central-brian-hooker/#comment-39934

    As of this moment, I don’t see that Jake has responded to that or anyone else. The newest post I see from Jake is about 30 minuets prior to Narad’s post.

    Stand up and take a bow, Narad. You broke the Jake-bot.

  95. #97 Narad
    September 5, 2014

    Einstein’s cosmological constant was a big blunder, regardless of his previous genius. (Assuming it actually was a big blunder. Space-time may actually be smooth, turns out, possibly vindicating Einstein after all. But whatever, I’m just trying to use for analogy something everyone already knows about).

    Aside from you, apparently. WTF do you think Λ has to do with the smoothness of anything?

  96. #98 Krebiozen
    September 5, 2014

    Dawn,

    There is a study I located regarding glutathione and thimerosol (although I suspect that this could be paired with any toxin with similar results) – if anyone has seen other studies I’d like to know about them. However I can only see the abstract. I am certain Krebiozen or O’Brien probably can access the entire study. Glutathione depletion is something I am more interested in and how vaccines (and even environmental toxins) may come into play with this sort of thing.

    Since glutathione plays a major role in preventing damage from free radicals, low levels for whatever reason will have major effects in multiple body systems. For example it is responsible for keeping the lenses of our eyes transparent, and maintaining our red blood cell membranes, as I mentioned before somewhere. Mercury poisoning from vanishingly small amounts in vaccines is the least of the problems someone with glutathione depletion has.

    There are broadly three ways someone can have low glutathione levels, firstly from genetic defects in the enzymes that synthesize glutathione, secondly depletion through illness, thirdly through poisoning. In the first case total glutathione will be low, as it will in the case of illness and/or malnutrition, in the case of poisoning it is reduced glutathione (GSH) that gets depleted more quickly than the body can replenish it (acetaminophen poisoning for example), often because the precursors of glutathione (sulfur-containing amino acids like cysteine) are also depleted. That’s why acetaminophen poisoning is treated with n-acetylcysteine or methionine.

    As the study you linked to suggests, GSH precursors may be a useful treatment in mercury poisoning. Maybe those still concerned about thimerosal in vaccines would feel better if they gave their child n-acetylcysteine, which is available from health food stores, before and after vaccination. There’s no rational basis, since the amount of thimerosal in vaccines is so small, bit it couldn’t do any harm*, and if it gets people to vaccinate their children it seems like a good thing to me.

    By the way, I note that the study you cited found that, “pretreatment of the cells with glutathione ethyl ester or NAC prevented cytotoxicity with exposure to 15 microM Thimerosal”. That’s 3,000 mcg/L, over 500 times greater than the highest blood mercury concentration found in infants post-vaccination. That’s why I wouldn’t bother taking NAC even if I had a flu vaccine containing thimerosal.
    I hope this helps.

    * As far as I know- toxicity of NAC anyone?

  97. #99 Dawn
    September 5, 2014

    Is glutathione only affected by mercury – I know the study only looks at that but can overexposures to lead, aluminum or say…chemical sprays on foods reduce glutathione? My understanding is that it is required to help process out any toxins that enter our system. Are there tests available to check people for genetic issues that may lead to low glutathione?

  98. #100 Dawn
    September 5, 2014

    NVM, I realize my questions are getting way off post topic. I see there are tests that can be taken, too for GSH. Many children with Autism have serious malabsorption problems due to GI Issues http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/04/22/peds.2013-3995.abstract thttp://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/Supplement_2/S160.full http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24614765
    And it would lead to malnutrition for many (add to that many are picky eaters only choosing to eat 2 or 3 food items). Hence my interest in GSH and the role it has. Something is triggering a lot of these kids to regress into Autistic behaviours right around the time when the heaviest vaccine loads are being administered. So is it no wonder that desperate parents want answers – and without an alternative suggestion why it happens soon or right after a particular vaccine..it leads to a set mindset that it must be vaccines despite available research *(as long as all the research is kosher…which Thompson may have thrown a wrench in that…guess will see). This is why so many find it hard to believe it could be anything else. B/c no-one else is really giving a reasonable explanation as to another option. No matter how scientific the studies are…no matter how correct, until they start taking a closer look at what other factors may be involved in triggering these regressions, the vaccine issue will not go away. Between the heavier vaccine schedules, the poor western diets (processed foods/salt/sugar), pesticides and chemicals and pollutions we are exposed to everyday, I tend to believe it has more to do with internal processes that have malfunctioned or are simply damaged beyond repair. Certainly genetic mutations being a culprit – but not genetics per se. I realize this is very grandiose thinking, however studies do show the umbilical cords of fetuses are filled with toxins, even DDThttp://www.ewg.org/research/body-burden-pollution-newborns http://environmentaldefence.ca/prepolluted. Autism cannot strictly be an evolutionary change. Something is interacting with the fetus’s/child’s genetics causing these mutations to take place. Hence why in Twin studies some develop as NT children while others are on the spectrum these studies do show that genetics are involved however they also show that environment plays a significant role as well http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1107328&maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Hallmayer%20J&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT. I don’t think vaccines are necessarily the culprit. However, I do think there could be a tipping point making some children more susceptible to illness and (in the case of autisms) neurological dysfunctions. Of course IMHO. Am I really way off? When I read the research and see individual studies…to me…it seems to point in one direction. GSH depletion. One study with mercury does not make it so. One study on GI issues does not make it so. But we are not exposed to one thing at a time either. Hence my interest there. Am I really way off on my thinking here? I get there is nothing to prove what I am thinking…but aren’t alot of these studies…when you look at them as a whole…pointing in this direction?
    Again my apologies if I have gotten way off topic. I’m still looking for knowledgeable insights.

  99. #101 Narad
    September 6, 2014

    Stand up and take a bow, Narad. You broke the Jake-bot.

    I certainly didn’t mean to; I’m not “trolling” Jake’s blog or anything, which is why I found above-average irritation when some of the shіtwits skulking around started pissing and moaning.

    Sure, I (correctly) mocked Jen for being crusted with Rappoport barf, but she was only around to piss and moan about Jake’s failure to “behave” in the first place. I rarely even look in unless Denice mentions that there’s a new entry.

  100. #102 Narad
    September 6, 2014

    Something is triggering a lot of these kids to regress into Autistic behaviours [sic] right around the time when the heaviest vaccine loads are being administered.

    You skipped a step.

  101. #103 Narad
    September 6, 2014

    ^ The “[sic]” was not because of the spelling, but because of the circular application of the “there is no biomarker” routine.

  102. #104 Dawn
    September 6, 2014

    @Narad, I agree that sudden onset of regressive autism is most likely rare at age 3 or older as your link concludes. I have also seen some of the studies that suggest there may have been always a gradual onset. I also agree that some children most likely had gradually begun showing atypical development before they suddenly lost skills. I guess that is why I look at the possible GSH issues. The gradual build up of malnutrition, poor absorption of nutrients due to GI issues http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100502080234.htm gets to a tipping point and suddenly the child loses all skills in a very dramatic way. So many cannot process cow’s milk (something many parents switch to at 12 mths) along with inability to digest solid foods properly…also 12 – 24 mths when this type of diet is fully instituted. As most of the very obvious *regressive* autism seems to take place between 12 and 24 mths, I honestly believe that low GSH brought on by a babies poor ability to absorb nutrients possibly b/c of genetic mutations that occurred while they are a fetus (maybe even more fully as a newborn as well). I am not suggesting that it was not gradually occurring before that point.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18956241
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16119475
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22855372
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15362172

    So, I wonder, if I am way off on this mindset. And wishing the research would look more into this area. B/c if parents could supplement safely with NAC – as Krebiozen suggests (for those at risk, those babies already showing a tendency towards colic and GI issues and reflux), could it help?

  103. #105 YoDaddie
    USA
    September 7, 2014

    Dear Krebiozen,

    From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15691220

    Thiomersal in Vaccines

    Balancing the Risk of Adverse Effects with the Risk of
    Vaccine-Preventable Disease

    Mark Bigham and Ray Copes

    Typical dietary consumption of some fish species by pregnant or lactating women, can result in fetal or infant mercury exposure approximating those from thiomersal-containing vaccines.[14,54,69,73-77] Recent estimates of breastfed infants’ dietary mercury exposure from breast milk under normal environmental conditions range from <1 microgram/L to approximately 3 microgram/L.[11,76,78-80] A mean mercury concentration in breast milk of 1.5 microgram/L, consumed by an exclusively breastfed,[81,82] fifth percentile female infant (mean bodyweight 4.3 kg), with an average intake of 140 ml/kg bodyweight per day of breast milk,[83] corresponds to a cumulative exposure to 164 microgram dietary mercury during the first 6 months of life. Thus, an exclusively breastfed infant is potentially exposed to approximately the same cumulative amount of mercury from breast milk in the first 6 months of postnatal life as from all WHO/EPI-recommended child- hood vaccinations. Given that the same mercury exposure from vaccines occurs as three or four parenteral boluses, one could expect short-term, peak levels of mercury after vaccination to be higher than from ingesting breast milk.

    So eliminating thiomersal in vaccines would remove around 50% of average infant’s mercury exposure in the US, not some negligible fraction of infant mercury exposure. Of course, since third-world countries have thiomersal in many more vaccines than the US does, arguably eliminating thiomersal in third-world vaccines would produce much more than a 50% reduction in their infant’s mercury exposure.

    Also – eliminating thiomersal in vaccines would eliminate short-term, peak levels of mercury after vaccination which are significantly higher than from ingesting breast milk in the US, and much higher than that in third-world countries.

  104. #106 Wijo, Living Better With Pharmaceuticals
    September 8, 2014

    I can’t help but wonder if antivaccination persons would be provaccination if, instead of autism, they or their children had a primary immune deficiency syndrome.

    I have a primary immune deficiency syndrome and my life truly depends on protection from herd immunity via vaccinations and donated plasma (from those who have vaccinated or endured a virus) so that I can self-infuse immunoglobulins once a week.

    Prior to my IgG replacement therapy, A cold with bronchitis landed me in a hospital for ten days in respiratory failure. I don’t like to think about what might happen if I were to catch influenza from someone.

    Testing to assess my immune system revealed that I failed the pneumovax challenge, so my immune system didn’t respond to the pneumonia vaccine and probably doesn’t respond to influenza vaccines either. Also, it is my understanding the immunoglobulins I infuse every week probably includes antibodies to influenza but they are previous years strains, so I’m still vulnerable to catching influenza.

    I am so grateful to those who manufacture IgGs, and to those who vaccinate and donate plasma so I can live somewhat of a normal life.

  105. #107 Krebiozen
    September 8, 2014

    YD,

    So eliminating thiomersal in vaccines would remove around 50% of average infant’s mercury exposure in the US, not some negligible fraction of infant mercury exposure.

    So US infants get a minuscule amount of mercury from both breast milk and vaccines. In the absence of any evidence that US infants suffer any adverse effects from mercury, so what? I remind you that people in Greenland consume vastly more methylmercury, with pregnant women consuming an average of “42 micrograms per day in the fall and 66 micrograms per day in the summer, mostly methylmercury, making their yearly intake around 20,000 micrograms” (source above, somewhere). We see no adverse effects on neurodevelopment in the infants of women who consume this amount of methylmercury, though we do see possible effects at higher levels. Since the fetus is far more vulnerable to mercury poisoning than an infant, it seems very unlikely to me that an infant consuming 328 mcg/year ethymercury will suffer adverse effects when the infant of a pregnant woman consuming 20,000 mcg/year methylmercury does not.

    Of course, since third-world countries have thiomersal in many more vaccines than the US does, arguably eliminating thiomersal in third-world vaccines would produce much more than a 50% reduction in their infant’s mercury exposure.

    In the absence of any evidence that this is harming them, spending money on producing mercury-free vaccines when children are dying for want of clean water, food and basic medical care seems more than a little perverse to me.

    Also – eliminating thiomersal in vaccines would eliminate short-term, peak levels of mercury after vaccination which are significantly higher than from ingesting breast milk in the US, and much higher than that in third-world countries.

    What is the problem with these transient peak levels of mercury exactly? They aren’t high enough to be of concern even if they were persistent. The highest post-vaccination level I have seen in the literature is 5.7 mcg/L, with most infants having much lower peak levels. If we look at Greenland again we see persistent blood levels of 20.5 mcg/L among men and 14.7 mcg/L among women. I don’t see the problem.

  106. #108 herr doktor bimler
    September 8, 2014

    eliminating thiomersal in vaccines would eliminate short-term, peak levels of mercury after vaccination which are significantly higher than from ingesting breast milk in the US

    YoDaddy is stating this as a fact, rather than his own supposition, only obtained by once again forgetting the different dynamics of methyl- and ethyl-mercury.

    and much higher than that in third-world countries.

    YD has so far been informed at least four times in this thread that mercury levels in third-world countries such as Greenland and the Seychelles far exceeds that in the US, but continues to maintain the opposite. I begin to wonder whether YD cares much about facts.

  107. #109 Helianthus
    September 8, 2014

    Of course, since third-world countries have thiomersal in many more vaccines than the US does, arguably eliminating thiomersal in third-world vaccines would produce much more than a 50% reduction in their infant’s mercury exposure.

    I have seen pictures (in NatGeo or some other periodic) of people in Africa near their water well, if we can call a hole in the ground a well, their hands burnt by the high concentration of arsenic and other nasty minerals in their water.
    (a lot of people on the planet don’t have the privilege to have access to clean water)

    I have seen pictures of deformed children next to a dilapidated oil processing plant in south USSR (and BTW, that was mercury poisoning, the real stuff – and autism was not mentioned).

    In either case, I very much doubt that removing mercury from vaccines will drop their heavy metal exposure by half. They will be lucky if it removes as much as 1 per thousand.

  108. #110 paradigmshift
    September 8, 2014

    It seems that the absorption of various amounts of mercury and aluminium into the body differs depending on the way it is taken in and in what form. The injection of a vaccine, bypassing the normal excretory routes of the digestive system makes its way straight to the immune system before going to the blood for excretion.
    I think that this needs to be addressed in your deliberations as well as the synergistic effects that many toxins have entering the body at the same time. See quicksilverscientific.com for an introduction to the various complexities in this issue.

  109. #111 Narad
    September 8, 2014

    The injection of a vaccine, bypassing the normal excretory routes of the digestive system makes its way straight to the immune system before going to the blood for excretion.

    There’s something you don’t hear every day. Speaking of “excretory routes,” have you ever wondered what happens to spent RBCs?

    See quicksilverscientific.com for an introduction to the various complexities in this issue.

    Yes, you’ve pimped them before. There’s no there there.

  110. #112 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    September 8, 2014

    ParadigmShift:

    The injection of a vaccine, bypassing the normal excretory routes of the digestive system makes its way straight to the immune system before going to the blood for excretion.

    Even if we accept your premise, there is so little thimerosal in a vaccine that I can’t see the relevance of your comment.

  111. #113 Calli Arcale
    http://fractalwonder.wordpress.com
    September 8, 2014

    paradigmshift:
    Out of curiosity, if the injected stuff goes to the immune system before hitting the blood and this is some sort of a problem, why would it be better to be exposed to mercury orally? After all, in the gut, substances meet the immune system right away, before they get absorbed. In fact, the gut has the most potent immune system of the whole body, undoubtedly because it’s the body’s number one clearinghouse for handling foreign material and thus the most likely place to actually meet a pathogen.

  112. #114 Krebiozen
    September 8, 2014

    paradigmshift,

    The injection of a vaccine, bypassing the normal excretory routes of the digestive system makes its way straight to the immune system before going to the blood for excretion. I think that this needs to be addressed in your deliberations

    It has been addressed; I have referred to blood mercury levels and the amount of mercury absorbed in my comments. How do you think a vaccine goes, “straight to the immune system before going to the blood”? The immune system is largely within the blood, in the form of antibodies and white blood cells.

    as well as the synergistic effects that many toxins have entering the body at the same time. See quicksilverscientific.com for an introduction to the various complexities in this issue.

    I would love to see evidence of synergistic effects of 25 micrograms of ethylmercury with any other toxins that would make it toxic to even a premature newborn.

    The company website you linked to only seems to offer analysis of blood, urine and hair for inorganic and methylmercury, but not ethylmercury, which is what thimerosal breaks down into. There is no mention of synergistic interaction between mercury and anything else.

  113. […] when I first noticed her. It explains much about why the press release also mentioned the whole “CDC whistleblower” manufactroversy being flogged by the antivaccine movement right now. It also explains why this […]

  114. […] While this advice is unlikely to cause harm, it’s also unnecessary. Most children don’t get thimerosal-containing vaccines anymore, and there’s no evidence that thimerosal-containing vaccines are harmful to adults or even to pregnant women. Ironically, research by the “CDC whistleblower” himself, Dr. William Thompson, is some of the key evidence that thimerosal does not cause neurodevelopmental disorders in children or problems when administered to pregnant women. […]

  115. #117 Tim
    September 22, 2014

    @Dawn #’s 500, 501, 505
    @Krebiozen #499

    There are broadly three ways someone can have low glutathione levels, firstly from genetic defects in the enzymes that synthesize glutathione, secondly depletion through illness, thirdly through poisoning. In the first case total glutathione will be low, as it will in the case of illness and/or malnutrition

    Low selenium?? Low Selenium/High iodine –> low glutathione???

    High copper?? Low zinc –> high copper –> low glutathione????

  116. #118 Tim
    September 22, 2014

    thirdly through poisoning

    So, pretty much everything in a ‘vaccine’?

    run a test for MTHFR mutations. These mutations (one called C677T and one called A1298C) have a single DNA switch in the gene (so for instance at the 677th position on the gene, there is a T where there should be a C), which leads to an abnormal MTHFR enzyme being produced. This leads to a decreased ability for the body to make the 5-MTHF, with a subsequent slow down in the methylation pathway. Currently there are no commercial labs that can measure blood methylfolate,

    Together with selenium, it forms the enzyme glutathione peroxidase, which neutralizes hydrogen peroxide. It is also a component of another antioxidant enzyme, glutathione-S-transferase, which is a broad-spectrum liver-detoxifying enzyme.

    http://tacanow.org/family-resources/detoxification-glutathione-autism/

    MTHFR stands for methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase – an enzyme that activates folic acid by adding a methyl group to it. That’s right, plain old folic acid – the same folic acid found in your multivitamin and in fortified foods.

    Activated folate (named 5MTHF) goes on to give its methyl group to other nutrients and substances – a process called “methylation.” It is required for the creation of every cell in your body, so if it is not activated properly, you can imagine what a significant issue it would be. 5MTHF, along with several other nutrients, is also used to create and process neurotransmitters…

    http://doctordoni.com/2014/04/folic-acid-and-mthfr-could-you-have-a-genetic-mutation.html

    So, Try no *folic acid* and go for real *folate* as well as some l- selenomethionine?

  117. #119 ChrisP
    September 23, 2014

    Tim, it is clear that you don’t understand chemistry. This is causing you to make all sorts of mistakes.

    I will start with folic acid. Folic acid and folate are essentially the same thing. The chemical difference between the two is that folic acid has a protonated carboxylic acid group, whereas folate has lost this proton. However, the two are in equilibrium and the proportion present as folate or folic acid is dependent only on the pH of the solution they are in. Folate will have another counter ion because it is negatively charged, being present as a salt. Consuming folate (the salt version) compared with folic acid, will make next to no difference.

    Humans have large amounts of glutathione. We have to as we are exposed to active oxygen compounds (ROS) all the time. In fact our bodies deliberately make ROS, we need a system to remove them, because they are dangerous and we don’t want the effects to last forever. There is insufficient of anything in a vaccine, or even 10 vaccines to significantly deplete glutathione in a human.

  118. #120 Narad
    September 23, 2014

    Consuming folate (the salt version) compared with folic acid, will make next to no difference.

    Except for folic acid’s being more bioavailable.

  119. #121 Narad
    September 23, 2014

    ^ That should have been two different links. The more recent one is here.

  120. #122 Helianthus
    September 23, 2014

    @ Tim

    Low selenium??

    I would be surprised if lack of selenium is widespread in the human population. It’s a micronutrient (we don’t need much compared to, say, iron or calcium) and our bodies are quite thorough at squeezing it out of the environment or recycling it (on par with iodine, if not better).
    You need to keep feeding a selenium-lacking diet to mice for three generations before you start seeing effects of selenium deficiency.

    According to the Wikipedia article on selenium, if you are a ruminant in North America , you are at risk of selenium deficiency. In New Zealand, despite low amounts of selenium in the soil, humans aren’t at risk. So I guess this amount to, “don’t be a sheeple”.

    As a sidenote, while selenium supplementation will correct a selenium deficiency, high doses of selenium may disrupt assimilation of zinc and/or copper.
    Nothing is simple in biology.

    I would also point out that, if you have selenium deficiency, you will have a lot more issues than a tendency to get side effects from vaccines. There is more to selenium and glutathione than just “detoxifying” one mL of vaccine.

  121. #123 Tim
    September 23, 2014

    @Narad,

    It is precisely this higher absorbability which concerns me. And what of some ‘downregulation’ if *folic acid*, with some part of it unconverted, is accepted as *folate*? — I know that, in my youth, I preferentially absorbed Cheetos over seaweed and turnip greens and wasn’t hungry anymore come dinnertime; Just like mom told me would happen, dammit!

    ——-

    I’m now adopting the view that the food supply fortification with various UPC things is like unto Kurt Vonneguts’ Harrison Bergeron. Though instead of *Handicapper General* we have *Lifespan-and-Quality-Capper General*.

    That is to say that, indeed, these additions improve life for those with poor diets; Sometimes, drastically. However, they’re detrimental, sometimes even toxic, to those with good nutrition otherwise.

    ============================
    @Helianthus,

    I’ve this friend, let us call him SWIM, who’d always been kind of *up tight/ wound up /anxious* all the time. So when Fukushima shot its’ wad to the four winds, SWIM flew into a panic being denied KI at the local pharmacy {he sees conspiracies just about everywhere}. SWIM did obtain a little brown vial of KI via the internet and stumbled into iodine related issues (cleaning out bromide, floride, breast and prostate cancers, the promise of youthful ‘morning wood’ that can drive nails… all the usual quackery).

    So, for a dietary supplement, SWIM grew very frustrated at how to divide up the little vial for daily use — he’d always been afraid of too much iodine before — and resorted to taking just a few grains of the stuff depending on their size and taking it *just whenever*.

    But along came the DEA to put his cure-all on a list of no-no chemicals to where a great big bottle of povidone iodine that was $4 is now unavailable; All that’s left is tiny $10 bottles. Now SWIM, seeing conspiracy everywhere, decided to start taking his KI daily at the ~13 mg rate commonly found in the Japanese diet as well as what the common folk there got from what they ate. He’d been doing this for ~ two years.

    Something came up in SWIM’s life that made him take a close, hard look at what he put into his body (which mostly consisted of EToH and culminated with basically a $2000 anxiety attack he can’t afford) so that he was delighted when his $20 AWS GEMINI 20 portable milligram scales arrived. He dropped his estimated dose on the scales and BINGO! 12mg. He tried another sampling of grains, his ‘little pinch’, and BINGO! 15 mg. SWIM was happy. Sort of. What was he always babbling about?? Oh yea — “If you don’t know the where, what and why, then prescribe ye the K and the I). But Something was still very wrong (besides draconian prohibition of God’s green plants).

    When he went back to revisit the iodine issue, he came across something very important — The Japanese also obtain a correspondingly high level of Selenium from the same sources (fish/seaweed).

    SWIM inadvertantly fired his doctor and he knows he’s swimming in unfamiliar ‘dark water’. he tries not to “follow the lights”. At least, he’s been doing great these past few days. Though, he still hasn’t shut up about eyeballs on dollar bills or some such.

  122. #124 JGC
    September 23, 2014

    thirdly through poisoning

    So, pretty much [nothing at the concentrations found] in a ‘vaccine’?

    FTFY, tim. Remember: it’s the dose that makes the poison.

  123. #125 JGC
    September 23, 2014

    It is precisely this higher absorbability which concerns me.

    Why? What evidence suggests the greater bioavailability of folic acid as compared to folate engenders risk?

  124. #126 Politicalguineapig
    September 23, 2014

    Tim: First of all, why not come out and say ‘this is me’ rather than inventing a ‘friend’ with a terribly transparent pseudonym? Secondly, potassium and iodine are pretty easy to find, and no, neither are prohibited. Finally, how the heck do you ‘inadvertently’ fire a doctor? Did you just stop going or what?

  125. #127 Shay
    September 23, 2014

    Tim — think of it this way. You wouldn’t offer your family bleach to drink. But if you live in hurricane country and keep a bottle of bleach on hand, you know that by reading the instructions on the bottle and putting the correct (minute) amount of bleach in a gallon of water, it will make it safe for them to drink after a storm knocks out the local water treatment plant.

    It won’t taste very good, but it will be safe to drink.

  126. #128 Tim
    September 23, 2014

    Well; Yes, Shay. That is what I’m saying. Personally, I’d still preferre the pure and natural spring water without stuff added to it to ‘protect’ me from something that usually isn’t there. Also, some people drink more water than others — standard dosing ( something I oppose; Universal X — Fits everything but your car) of ‘medicine’ kinda goes out the window with those kinds of policies (think: flouride), does it not??

  127. #129 squirrelelite
    September 23, 2014

    @Tim,

    Personally, I’d like to make sure my drinking water doesn’t have germs that will make me sick any time, even if they are “usually” not there.

    As for fluoridation, here in the west most ground water contains it naturally because it leaches in from minerals. In many places, it has to be removed to get it below the 1.5 mg/L level needed to avoid fluorosis.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation

    And, bottled water doesn’t have to disclose the amount of fluoride it contains, so if you really want to avoid the fluoride and increase your risk of tooth decay, you should buy bottles of distilled water and avoid all the minerals in that spring water. Besides, it’s probably cheaper.

  128. #130 Politicalguineapig
    September 23, 2014

    Tim: do you actually know what’s in water? Fish crap, bacteria, occasionally amoebas and other organisms…and that stuff is in there ALL the time, 24/7. You know what people drank back before industrialization? Not a lot of ‘pure water.’ If you want to drink unpurified water after a hurricane that’s fine. Enjoy the dysentery. (And if you’re buying bottled water- well, a lot of it is actually tap water in fancy packaging.)
    As for your personal bogeyman, even if you drank eight glasses (or more) in most regions, you’re not going to get anywhere near a *gram* of flouride. And I believe the lethal dose is a lot higher then any amount of water that’s normally ingested. Not to mention that water in the human body is pretty self-regulating.

  129. #131 Tim
    September 23, 2014

    so if you really want to avoid the fluoride and increase your risk of tooth decay, you should buy bottles of distilled water and avoid all the minerals in that spring water

    Ohh, SQL. I think not! I’d learned early on the constipating effect (goat-knots my grams would call it) when just drinking too much springwater initially after being used to the city stuff. — Many of those minerals are trace elements not yet poisoning the food/water supply as a UPC.

    Also, I *think* there is a huge difference between the natural bound calcium flouride {my ancestors were feldspar miners as well as pernicious anemics} and the industrial waste, hydrofluorosilicic acid, we’re inundated with.

    Because fluoride

  130. #132 Dangerous Bacon
    September 23, 2014

    “I’ve this friend, let us call him SWIM, who’d always been kind of *up tight/ wound up /anxious* all the time. So when Fukushima shot its’ wad to the four winds, SWIM flew into a panic being denied KI at the local pharmacy {he sees conspiracies just about everywhere}.”

    You’re buddies with Mike Adams? Does he ever pick up a check?

    “I *think* there is a huge difference between the natural bound calcium flouride {my ancestors were feldspar miners as well as pernicious anemics} and the industrial waste, hydrofluorosilicic acid, we’re inundated with.”

    Yep, there’s a vast difference between fluoride ions depending on what compound they come from, as my old chemistry professor used to say (before they took him away).
    And didja know that chemotherapy came from mustard gas, same as they used in the WWI trenches?!?!?

  131. #133 Tim
    September 23, 2014

    And did you know, Dangerous Bacon, that nitric turns your skin yellow kinda like hydroflouric turns it loose?? — I didn’t; Not knowing any chemistry, or anything.

  132. #134 Tim
    September 23, 2014

    Personally, Dangerous Bacon — nitrosamine whore, I’d rather be momentarily sheltering in place with an open 1-lb can of plutonium than a trench full of mustard gas any day…

    “”they’re coming to take me away… to the funny-farm where life is beautiful all the time, with birds, and bees, and flowers, and trees, and basket-weavers that sit on the walls and smile.. hehe, haha…

    Dr. Demento, Funny Farm

  133. #135 Shay
    September 23, 2014

    Tim@529:

    Well, that was in English, and was even spelled and punctuated correctly. Didn’t make a damned bit of sense, though.

  134. #136 Politicalguineapig
    September 23, 2014

    Shay: At least Tim gets points for being consistently incoherent.

  135. #137 Rebecca Fisher
    That London
    September 24, 2014

    Oh look – Tim spells it “flouride”. That, as we all know, is a massive pointer to green ink tendencies and colossal wintgnuttery.

    And I ought to point out that the song he’s thinking of is called “They’re coming to take me away, ha-haa!” and is by Napoleon XIV.

    Grr.

  136. #138 Rebecca Fisher
    September 24, 2014

    “wingnuttery”.

  137. […] conspiracy mongering went deep into Alex Jones territory, as he bought the “CDC whistleblower” manufactroversy hook, line, and […]

  138. #140 Krebiozen
    September 24, 2014

    Curiosity aroused, I turned off the killfile script. I read, I shrugged, shaking my head sadly, and reengaged the killfile. It’s more interesting guessing what Tim wrote from the responses than it is actually reading what Tim wrote.

  139. #141 Tim
    September 24, 2014

    Ohh, bother. Rebecca Fisher, I often do spell that one wrong but left it these times in the spirit of my previous posts of mass poisoning of people through folic acid supplementation of flour.

    I didn’t tell you to “stop playing with your food,” now did I?

    Stop playing with your food, Rebecca.

  140. #142 Tim
    September 24, 2014

    “fortification”

    Grr.

  141. #143 Politicalguineapig
    September 24, 2014

    Tim: Learn some math and chemistry before spouting off about ‘poisons’, ‘kay?

  142. #144 Tim
    September 24, 2014

    PgP,

    Math is hard. But, I found a video that makes me want to learn some…

    Nature by Numbers:

  143. #145 Politicalguineapig
    September 24, 2014

    Tim: Percentages are *not* that hard. If stuff is measured in milligrams or micrograms, chances are any effect it’s going to have on a working human digestive system are negligible. Heck, ingesting an apple seed’s worth of cyanide isn’t going to kill *anyone* and cyanide’s an actual poison.

  144. #146 squirrelelite
    September 24, 2014

    Tim is mainly about spouting off weird ideas from the top of his head. Logic has very little to do with it, but the power of suggestion is strong.

    Since he completely missed my point about fluoride being naturally in ground water and chose to focus on a by-product of the production of phosphate fertilizer that has uses in tanning leather, setting dyes as well as being convenient for increasing the fluoride content of water to the desired, low level; discussing science with him is unlikely to be productive.

    As for plutonium, I note from the EPA

    External exposure to plutonium poses very little health risk, since plutonium isotopes emit alpha radiation, and almost no beta or gamma radiation. In contrast, internal exposure to plutonium is an extremely serious health hazard. It generally stays in the body for decades, exposing organs and tissues to radiation, and increasing the risk of cancer. Plutonium is also a toxic metal, and may cause damage to the kidneys.

    So, as long as it’s purified and solid, I’d be much happier next to a one pound can of plutonium.

    It’s the nasty gamma-emitting decay products I worry about.

    And, my one tiny bit of scientific research actually involved measuring the alpha spectrum from a (small admittedly) sample of plutonium.

  145. #147 herr doktor bimler
    September 24, 2014

    I’d be much happier next to a one pound can of plutonium.

    Ah, but Tim specified an open tin of plutonium, and there is the whole “self-spalling” and “spontaneously igniting” concern. Solid plutonium doesn’t stay solid.

  146. #148 squirrelelite
    September 24, 2014

    Good point, herr doktor!

    I guess I’d prefer it as a solid chunk with the surface oxidized for chemical sealing and try to get it into a dry inert atmosphere and a sealed container ASAP, but I’d still prefer it to breathing mustard gas.

  147. #149 sadmar
    The Fog
    September 25, 2014

    Tim:
    “They’re Coming To Take Me Away” by Napolean XIV, was a top 40 chart hit in 1966. Dr. Demento played the record regularly on his radio show, and it was probably re-released on a compilation of old novelty songs ‘as featured on Dr. Demento.’ I think I had the 45 when I was a kid. Great song.
    …………..
    Having no background in medical science, I can’t speak to its specific applicability here, but it strikes me that Tim’s J.C. Whitney Theory of Imprecise Universality is keenly observed general principle of existence. It’s not that ‘X’ is entirely useless, but that ‘some drilling may be required’ is an understatement, and after you’ve sustained multiple minor hand injuries forcing ‘X’ into place – kind of – it still leaks a little and bangs your chassis when you over a bump.
    …………

    I have been informed by unreliable sources that these YouTube clips contain inaudible digital homeopathic energy beacons that can break down the fish-crap in your body water transforming it into ‘micro-carp’ that cobble-up the bad bacteria and amoebae and exit via the colon once satiated. All without chemicals or excessive microwave radiation!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tBaMlAUj08
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjeL2YOItU

    My informants have also claimed that the inaudible energy beacons in the next two cuts constitute the digital homeopathic version of righteous reefer, though repeated playback may be required and the psychoactive effect is dependent on the presence of a certain baseline amount of fluoride in the listener’s system.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6efBdH3aDY
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIUxX82xlX8
    …………

    “Tim, it is clear that you don’t understand chemistry.”
    Well, chemistry doesn’t understand Tim, so even-steven.
    Bonus points for using “clear” and “Tim” in the same sentence, though.

    “why not come out and say ‘this is me’ rather than inventing a ‘friend’ with a terribly transparent pseudonym?”
    What fun would that be?

    “nitrosamine whore”
    Mustard maintenance may manifest metaphor mutation. I don’t think Tim really meant to call DB a whore. I think the thought Tim was actually reaching for was ‘nitrosamine pimp.’
    ………….

    “that was even spelled and punctuated correctly”
    “Tim gets points for being consistently incoherent.”
    PGP: I think you underestimate Tim. I think he’s inconsistently incoherent, and I suspect there’s method in it: something along the lines of Skinnerian operant conditioning…
    …………..

    “He’s been doing great these past few days. Though, he still hasn’t shut up about eyeballs on dollar bills or some such.”
    Glad to hear SWIM’s feeling better, and also that the Selenium or whatever hasn’t made him ‘normal.’ Of course, the conspiracy theory about the Eyeball being a symbol of the Satanist Freemason Illuminati is nonsense, but that doesn’t make it any less disturbing. My guess is that Roosevelt had been reading Jeremy Bentham, and had the eye put on the money for the disciplinary effect of the resulting panoptic presence in order to discourage revolutionary impulses resulting from the Great Depression. Our thrifty ancestors watched their money. Now our money watches us…

    STOP LOOKING AT ME!!
    ………………

    Which actually brings me back to the neighborhood of William S. Thompson, by which I mean not Atlanta but Conspiracy Theories. The anti-immunos posit a conspiracy to suppress the bleats of Thompson’s whistle at the CDC’s conspiracy to suppress data exposing the Big Pharma Shill conspiracy to discredit Andrew Wakefield revelations about the Big Pharma conspiracy to spread ASD for profit. The conspiracies run four levels deep. I say, let’s go for five. Why not put the whole mess under the Conspiracy Theory conspiracy theory? This would posit that powerful social actors encourage the spread of conspiratorial fantasies to provide harmless low-resistance paths to drain off the public’s well-founded fears of abuse-of-power, and deflect attention from the ACTUAL conspiracies that are messing us up, but are too reified to imagine challenging.

    I’m just having fun presenting this as ‘a conspiracy theory,’ warping a real not-conspiracy theory that warns about this effect bu doesn’t allege any of this is intentional, much less an agreed-upon plan of some cabal.) As s.g. collins put it in his dissection of moon-landing hoaxers:

    The U. S. government lies all the time, about all kinds of things,and if they haven’t lied to you today, maybe they haven’t had coffee yet… But that step from knowing you’ve been lied to to believing everything is a lie is a big step… You’ve stepped over into the realm of magic… It’s like you need to cling to your belief system with all your might against the overwhelming evidence of your own rational mind… What’s dangerous about that is it blinds you to the real conspiracies the authorities are perpetrating on you right now. As we speak. Things that are a lot more important than whether some guys went to the moon. I mean, I’m not ‘America’, but if I were, I would much rather have you be questioning Apollo 11, and not questioning The Patriot Act, The Iraq War, the financial industry bailouts, and the right to indefinite military detention without charge. Those things are real.”
    ……….
    Kreb wrote: “It’s more interesting guessing what Tim wrote from the responses than it is actually reading what Tim wrote.”
    I’d hope Tim takes that as a compliment. It’s just this that separates Tim from the trolls here. You know what the trolls are going to say, how they’re going to say it, and the tone of self-righteous superiority they’re going to present without reading the posts. Tim’s not only unpredictable, but self-deprecating if not self-undermining, if not self-deconstructing altogether. He’s also frequently funny, and includes off-tangent links to cool YT videos.

    Whatever Tim’s intention, his posts work as ‘performance art’ in the tradition of these guys (click ’em if you like funny):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHlLmYVCzKY
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Q2wzNeEOI
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3vbxeBvaU0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0x5x8lyON8

    Which is say, instead of reading Tim’s posts as word salad, imagine them as word/idea jazz, (albeit more John Zorn than Charlie Parker).

    And, as ‘performance art’, Kreb’s engagement with it via epiphenomena only is a perfectly valid aesthetic approach.

  148. #150 Narad
    September 25, 2014

    there is the whole “self-spalling” and “spontaneously igniting” concern

    Meh.

  149. #151 TIm
    September 25, 2014

    This would posit that powerful social actors encourage the spread of conspiratorial fantasies to provide harmless low-resistance paths to drain off the public’s well-founded fears of abuse-of-power, and deflect attention from the ACTUAL conspiracies that are messing us up, but are too reified to imagine challenging.

    Ah, Sadmar. Yes? Hard to exist in a vacuum of information and not be so. The crust of *controlled opposition* and deflection — Inhomogenious vaccum deposition into a most (what’s probably most accurately described as some kind of porphyritic dike) irreproducible amalgam of atypical cleave and part. It’s probably a good superconductor, or something. I’m pretty sure it causes cancer.

    Maybe it takes a commune…

  150. #152 Tim
    September 25, 2014
  151. #153 Antaeus Feldspar
    September 25, 2014

    OT, but at least comprehensible: Does anyone have a good refutation for the claims here: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10152434341017989&id=287991907988 ?

  152. #154 Narad
    September 25, 2014

    Does anyone have a good refutation for the claims here

    The locus for the image seems to be D’Ohlmsted. “Lot A” is discussed here.

  153. #155 Narad
    September 25, 2014

    ^ Aka “lot 64201,” it appears.

  154. #156 squirrelelite
    September 25, 2014

    @Antaeus,

    This gripe seems popular on the antivax sites, including vaccineriskawareness.com and vaclib.org. I also got a couple hits on whale.to.

    Here’s one paper which analyzed the connection.

    http://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC1779219&blobtype=pdf

    It was hard to read that old typing from the photo, but here’s my transcription.

    Wyeth
    To: Mr Larry Hewitt
    From: Alan Bernstein
    August 27, 1979
    After the reporting of the SID cases in Tennessee, we discussed the merits of limiting distribution of a large number of vials from a single lot to a single state, county or city health department and obtained agreement from the senior management staff to proceed with such a plan.

    This subject has been discussed with Charlie Young and the following guidelines were developed by ???. I would appreciate your comments concerning this procedure and the advisability of formalizing these guidelines.

    Interim Measures in Affect (sic)
    1. Allocation of stock in Distribution Centers is designated by lot number in a manner designed to leave the maximum variety of lot numbers in Great Valley and Marietta to service substantial orders.
    2. Managers in D.C.’s carrying average inventories of over 3000 packages (approximate) have been requested to advise ??? of any orders exceeding 2000 vials. ??? will then designate shipment by lot number, furnishing additional stock as needed.
    Permanent Policy Proposal
    1. A D.C. (distribution center???) will not fill any order with stock exceeding 2000 packages of one lot number before clearing with ???.
    2. When additional stock is needed for compliance, ??? will make necessary arrangements.
    3. In the event that the national inventory does not permit compliance, ??? will clear exception with Marietta management, or make shipments for split delivery.

    Signed by Alan Bernstein

    It appears to me that Bernstein and his colleagues were concerned about the problem of having one location getting caught with most of their inventory from the same lot # if that lot # were subject to a recall in the future. This might lead to a shortage and leave them unable to provide vaccines for a short period.

    Since all vaccinations are recorded by lot # anyway (at least I think so), multiple adverse events connected to the same lot would still be picked up by the system and lead to an investigation. So, complaint about hiding problems by dispersing them around is just hand waving.

    Also, this case was pre-NVICP and VAERS.

  155. #157 Narad
    September 25, 2014

    I’m inclined to guess that if one wants to untangle confounders, dispersing lots makes sense; one can still correlate reactions with the lot itself, but I’m still looking at whether there was an actual signal to start with.

  156. #158 squirrelelite
    September 25, 2014

    @Narad,

    I see the Roberts paper I linked to is one of the references for your link.

    Some of the phrasing even sounded a bit familiar, but that may just be the limits of medical technical writing.

  157. #159 squirrelelite
    September 25, 2014

    Also, Narad, pg 757 of the Roberts paper reads:

    The authors of this paper suggested that the cluster in Tennessee was real and was an example of the 5% of occasions in which association will be found, by chance, to be significant.

  158. #160 Narad
    September 25, 2014

    It appears to me that Bernstein and his colleagues were concerned about the problem of having one location getting caught with most of their inventory from the same lot # if that lot # were subject to a recall in the future.

    That makes sense. Of course, some context would help: I doubt this memo exists in some sort of vacuum. The exact reason for its floating around in isolation in the first place is also thoroughly opaque; I started browsing lawsuits, but I don’t really have the energy.

  159. #161 Narad
    September 25, 2014

    This subject has been discussed with Charlie Young and the following guidelines were developed by ??? FSRD.

    FTFY. “Finished Stock Requirements Division.”

  160. #162 sadmar
    Presbyopian Church
    September 25, 2014

    Antaeus:
    I have a few apologies for you and further stuff, which I need to compose and will be too long to post here…

    However, I shall begin by apologizing for misreading your name, and thus mis-spelling it repeatedly. My eyes are not-so-good, and the text on my laptop is rather small, so I rely on context and easily mistake one name for another if graphically similar. Regardless, it was careless and I am sorry.

    Antaeus would challenge all passers-by to wrestling matches, kill them, and collect their skulls. He was indefatigably strong as long as he remained in contact with the ground.

    Moral to me: read carefully and do your research.

  161. #163 lilady
    September 26, 2014

    Vaccine Hot lots?

    That’s a favorite among the anti-vaxxers, who advise parents to get the lot number off the vaccine vial…the theory being that the CDC directs vaccine manufacturers to split up those “hot lots” among multiple States, so that the resulting severe adverse reactions (including SIDS), are distributed among the 50 States:

    http://sfsbm.org/wiki2/index.php?title=Vaccine_Misconception_3

    The child’s Vaccine Administration Record is found in the front of the child’s chart and the lot number/vaccine manufacturer is listed for every vaccine the child receives:

    http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p2022.pdf

  162. #164 Johnny
    127.0.0.1
    September 26, 2014

    Looking back at my yellow book from the mid to late 1970s, I see that smallpox and yellow fever were the only ones that were tracked by lot number (for example, I had yellow fever from NDC lot 1763GD in Oct 1977). DTP, no record of lot number in my records, nor a place to record it, but I should note that D&T were separate from P.

    /anecdote

  163. #165 lilady
    September 26, 2014

    Johnny: Now you have me thoroughly confused, about notations contained in your “yellow book”.

    Is the yellow book a record of your childhood vaccines? (I had a yellow sheet provided by a local health department, indicating I received a smallpox vaccine, prior to departing the USA for Europe in 1972).

    According to the Wikipedia entry, diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus vaccines were combined in 1949.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DPT_vaccine

  164. #166 Johnny
    127.0.0.1
    September 26, 2014

    By ‘yellow book’ I mean PHS-731 International Certificates of Vaccination (Rev 9-71). If you want childhood I have to go wayback.

    I came of age in the 70’s (class of ’75) and joined the AF very shortly there after. In my AF records, D&T are noted, but looking closer, I don’t see pertussis listed. I confused “P” purtisis with “P” polio in my above post.

    I am not a medical person, and can’t go toe to toe with you or any other medico. I can only say what is pen and ink that I have in my hand.

    Perhaps there were a coupla versions back in the day, D&T with separate P, vs DTP. I only know D&T are listed in my records on their own lines ( with no place to indicate batch number).

    (A smallpox vaccine? I have records of 5 revaccinations, but I did travel quite a bit. I’m glad that one is dead in the wild, it made an ugly scab. Nobody got laid with that on their arm. Polio, too. I remember being told ‘don’t touch that (standing) water, you’ll get polio’. These kids today don’t understand what it was like back when.)

  165. #167 lilady
    September 26, 2014

    Thanks for the clarification Johnny. When I traveled to Europe again, the smallpox vaccine was not a requirement.

    My daughter, born in 1970, was part of the last birth cohort who was required to have the smallpox vaccine at one year of age. In 1972, the CDC eliminated smallpox vaccine from the Recommended Childhood Vaccine.

    I volunteered to receive the smallpox vaccine during the run up to the WMDs scare and I vaccinated a few physicians and nurses from each area hospital in my County. We used the NYC Department of Health Dryvax vaccine, which was still potent after many years. It was long sleeves for me and an occlusive bandage when I visited my medically fragile son in his group home, until the scab fell off.

  166. #168 Antaeus Feldspar
    September 26, 2014

    thank you, everybody, especially Narad and Squirrelelite. That explanation makes a great deal of sense.

    I have some follow-up questions, which would help me set the context better:

    1) was anyone else other than Wyeth manufacturing this vaccine at that time?

    2) approximately how much of an area’s demand for a vaccine might be filled by one lot? A little Googling says that the 2013 recall of an HPV vaccine lot involved nearly 750,000 vials. Would the size of a Wyeth lot of DPT in 1979 have been comparable?

  167. #169 Politicalguineapig
    September 26, 2014

    Antaeus: I’m just guessing here, but I’m assuming the lots would be smaller in ’75, because there were less people back then.

  168. #170 MI Dawn
    September 26, 2014

    I have my vaccine record that my mother was given, and, until I handed them off to the kids, I had theirs. In none of those records are the lot numbers recorded. However, I do remember that the nurse carefully put the lot number in my kids’ medical records when she gave the injections. So there is a records *somewhere*…..

  169. #171 Narad
    September 26, 2014

    Would the size of a Wyeth lot of DPT in 1979 have been comparable?

    It was 32,000 vials.

  170. #172 Narad
    September 26, 2014

    was anyone else other than Wyeth manufacturing this vaccine at that time?

    In 1984, the CDC reported this:

    “Now, two of the three U.S. commercial manufacturers (Wyeth and Connaught, Inc.) have stopped distribution of their products. Thus, only one manufacturer (Lederle) now markets DTP vaccine in the United States.”

  171. […] The next big error is that Hooker used inappropriate statistical tests and, as I like to say, tortured the data until they confessed what he wanted them to confess, namely a correlation between MMR and autism. Even then, all he […]

  172. […] that the Ebola outbreak came just around the same time a CDC “whistleblower,” who has long been discredited, was set to make a statement about […]

  173. […] the spread of Ebola to Texas is part of a concerted government effort to shift attention away from a discredited “whistleblower,” who was going to make a statement about a vaccine/autism link that supposedly had been […]

  174. […] given that it doesn’t discuss much that I haven’t already covered in detail here, here, here, here, here, and here. That’s not to say that there aren’t any new revelations, but most of them have […]

  175. […] Thompson said indicated a conspiracy, fraud, or cover up can be found here, here, here, here, here, and here. Ultimately, Brian Hooker’s paper was retracted, but that didn’t stop Andrew […]

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.